Maybe I'm Missing Something... Corporate raises?

[Sava]

The rise in the stock market over the last year reflects spectacular growth in profits but not a generally healthy economy nor sustainable growth. Profits have never fared better, nor wage and salary income so poorly for this period of the business cycle. Since the last expansion ended in the first quarter of 2001, corporate profits in the United States have expanded by 57.5%. Meanwhile, private wage and salary income has contracted by 1.7% and total labor compensation has increased by a meager 1.5%.

another EPI article... http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/we...shots_04122004

the numbers I spoke of in my first post were from the first quarter in 2004... the average disparity of corporate profit growth compared to wage growth is not as large from 2001 until now... but still large enough to seem... unfair.

[JohnT]

Sava, can you stay on topic? Thanks!

[Sava]

Originally posted by JohnT
I didn't know the recession ended in Q4, 2001.

Yes... it began in March of 2001 (after Bush was president, so that talk of inheriting a recession is bull****) and ended in 2001. We've been in a jobless recovery for 3 years.

[Sava]

Originally posted by JohnT
Sava, can you stay on topic? Thanks!

the topic is corporate raises versus working wages... perhaps you have the wrong thread.

[Kuciwalker]

Corporations don't get "raises", Sava.

[JohnT]

Yes, and how do corporate profits figure into a discussion about individual earnings?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Man, John is PWNING everyone!

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Sava
Yes... it began in March of 2001 (after Bush was president, so that talk of inheriting a recession is bull****) and ended in 2001. We've been in a jobless recovery for 3 years.

Depending on whose figure you look at it is either last qtr 2000 or first qtr 2001. In either event it IS indicative of inheriting a recession as no fiscal/budgetary policy could be proposed and implemented until October 2001, hence the government was still running under Clintonian established direction until that time.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Spiffor
But I find it less outrageous than big bosses indeed, for a simple reason: these artists and sportsmen aren't the ones who decide the wages of others.

So what... that's their job as bosses... and many of the wages they decide are fair.

They don't decide to layoff people.

They also hire people. Remember, they are running a business. The idea of business is to make money, and that means laying off people and hiring people as the market dictates. I don't think people are owed a lifetime job at a company. If you want to argue that capitalism sucks, fine. But the reality is, under capitalism, somebody has to make those kind of decisions... and those people get paid big bucks to make them.

They are not the foremost advocates of a system where the weak can go die in the gutter (I don't know if they do this in the US, since they have won, but they sure do in France).

I think sports and movie stars making big money are advocates of the system that allow them to make that kind of money. In communism, they wouldn't be able to do that
I don't see them giving all their money away to keep people from dieing in the gutter. And heck, isn't the number one capitalist, Bill Gates, the LARGEST giver to charity. Your broad sweeping generalizations are just that... but I guess they sound good to you

The day the big bosses bundle their salary raise with their employees' is the day I'll respect them.

I would agree that top management pay should be based on results... and if they succeed, they should get the big bucks. But I have no problem with them making the big bucks.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by JohnT
It's stunning, the lack of threads protesting George Lucas and his $400million in earnings in FY 2000, his $250million in FY 2001, his $200million in earnings for FY 2002, and his $185million in FY 2003, isn't it? If my math is correct, that gives him $1,035,000,000 in earnings in the past four years.

He put the capital up for the movies he made, he took the risk on himself and the community payed him the money through sales of the movie. The money he received is in direct proportion to the sales made.

Hell, even dead celebrities earn more than their living CEO counterparts.

Their contribution to society is unquestionable. And again, the money they 'receive' is in direct proportion to the sales made.

Contrast those two situations to CEO's. Company performance has very little to do with their earnings.
Therein lies the outrage.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Sava
Yes... it began in March of 2001 (after Bush was president, so that talk of inheriting a recession is bull****) and ended in 2001. We've been in a jobless recovery for 3 years.

Well, I don't want to digress any more than we have, but why haven't you been giving Bush the applause he so richly deserves for ending a recession a mere 9 months after it began and a mere 3 months after his fiscal policies have taken effect?

Ming:

They also hire people.

Funny how that side of the equation never makes it into their social calculations.

[Ming]

Originally posted by JohnT
Funny how that side of the equation never makes it into their social calculations.

Yeah... funny how they forget that these are the same people that create jobs... but I can understand how some just want to focus on the negative while ignoring the positive. While it may make them sound morally superior, it ignores reality

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

You all forget. The assumption is the worker owns those jobs, and the CEO heartlessly steals away those jobs in the name of cost cutting to pump profits and line his pocket.

[Sava]

Originally posted by JohnT
Yes, and how do corporate profits figure into a discussion about individual earnings?

Yes, corporate profits have nothing to do with individual earnings...



IMO, corporate profits are directly related to individual earnings and raises. If you disagree... well... go educate yourself. If a mod feels that my line of discussion is off-topic, then a mod can tell me to stop. So JohnT, don't post if you have nothing to discuss.

Yeah... funny how they forget that these are the same people that create jobs... but I can understand how some just want to focus on the negative while ignoring the positive. While it may make them sound morally superior, it ignores reality

Personally, I'd like to see a system where more people can work for themselves. I want to see more independent enterpreneurs and businesses. People shouldn't just be a cog in the corporate machine.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ming
So what... that's their job as bosses... and many of the wages they decide are fair.

They also hire people. Remember, they are running a business. The idea of business is to make money, and that means laying off people and hiring people as the market dictates. I don't think people are owed a lifetime job at a company. If you want to argue that capitalism sucks, fine. But the reality is, under capitalism, somebody has to make those kind of decisions... and those people get paid big bucks to make them.

I understand there are people hired to run a business. It is normal that a business has people at the helm. My problem is NOT that there are people at the helm.
My main beef is that the people at the helm, who pretend they can't raise wages, who in France pretend the welfare state is too generous... well that these people are so generous with themselves. My other problem is that they tend to see the people out of their circle as resources (who deserve as little layoff compensation, as little job security as possible), while those in their circle are friends, who somehow deserve millions of dollars as compensation after leading a company to its doom.

There is a strong "circle" effect among the economic elites. And this is why they feel perfectly justified in bettering their situation.

I think sports and movie stars making big money are advocates of the system that allow them to make that kind of money. In communism, they wouldn't be able to do that
I don't see them giving all their money away to keep people from dieing in the gutter. And heck, isn't the number one capitalist, Bill Gates, the LARGEST giver to charity. Your broad sweeping generalizations are just that... but I guess they sound good to you

In France, the big shots of capitalism want the welfare system dead. I truly wonder if there is any American capitalist supportive of it.

I would agree that top management pay should be based on results... and if they succeed, they should get the big bucks. But I have no problem with them making the big bucks.

I have problems with people making too much money for them to use, but that's not the debate of this thread.
My problem is that these people are fundamentally self-serving capitalists, and that they should be accountable. My problem is that these people are extremely generous with themselves, while explaining it is impossible and unrealistic to raise the wages / quality of life of others.
At least sportsmen generally avoid political advocacy, and they're not in position of saying "Sorry people, there is no money this year... except for us".