1 1
wmw999

Inequality and corruption

Recommended Posts

I have a feeling it’s a feedback loop; not only does corruption drive inequality, but it works the other way, too. The less sharing there is of power and influence (and these days that translates to money), the more willing more people are to game the system, or simply straight out cheat, because they know they absolutely don’t have access to the kind of money that buys that power. To me, that means it behooves the sharing of power and money, and more importantly, the redefinition of what “enough” power or money is. Because (and we all like to pick on CEO’s these days) CEO’s all think they deserve and need all that money, as it determines their worth, too.

Wendy P. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Why shouldn’t we pick on CEOs? The colossal gap between worker wage increases (or real world decreases right now) and CEO wage increases can’t be ignored. They are earning actual orders of magnitude more than they did a few decades ago.

 

With inflation this year hitting 9% already I was listening to a radio show that was full of experts warning that you can’t help out ordinary people on low wages by paying them more because it’ll have all sorts of knock on effects that’ll increase prices even further. I can’t remember the last thing I listened to that made me so angry. CEOs’, Directors’ and other executives’ salaries have been skyrocketing unabated for decades and it has simply happened. It will have had all kinds of drastic effects on society as a whole but who cares, it’s just a thing we have to deal with. Inflation is 9%, CEOs’ average compensation jumped 19% in 2020 alone. Not to mention with so much emphasis on share price linked bonuses those CEOs and Directors are in a position where they can simply manipulate a company’s financial performance in a way that suits their bonus scheme with stock buybacks etc and it’s all completely legal. Callous conservatives like to complain about poor people voting for liberals and their social welfare projects as ‘voting for bread and circuses’ - bullshit. Already insanely wealthy CEOs artificially bumping up their already obscene bonuses is what ‘voting for bread and circuses’ really looks like. And it doesn’t come for free. It costs money to do that. It doesn’t help the price of goods and services and it doesn’t help the spending power of an average worker. 
 

But talk about paying more to people who work a full time job and still struggle to afford central heating in winter and we have to be careful not to upset the system!  Bunch of fucking arseholes.

Edited by jakee
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jakee said:

...But talk about paying more to people who work a full time job and still struggle to afford central heating in winter and we have to be careful not to upset the system!  Bunch of fucking arseholes.

'Cuz that's socialism.

Duh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

spacer.png

spacer.png

A distorting fact in CEO compensation are new startups. Where the founding executives and partners are most often overcompensated. Its up to shareholders and the board to keep executive compensation in hand. Above graphs from CEO Pay Trends Around the Globe

Warren Buffett's annual salary has been $100,000 for 40 years. Here's a look at the billionaire investor's unique compensation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, jakee said:

But talk about paying more to people who work a full time job and still struggle to afford central heating in winter and we have to be careful not to upset the system!  Bunch of fucking arseholes.

I think your hero Obama just about killed the notion of full time entry level positions by forcing the employer to provide insurance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

CEO’s all think they deserve and need all that money, as it determines their worth, too.

Wendy P. 

CEO compensation is out of balance. There are many reasons for it, some are:
- some believe that they use it as a way to keep score as to who is the biggest and baddest, in some ways it's the old "my wiener is bigger than yours" game

One thing that's easy to see is the actual pay but then there are the benefits, many of which are hidden and unknown to most. One basis for pay is a "review of comparable peers", the problem with that is they are all playing the same game and pay spirals upward. But employee compensation can be adjusted based on other factors generally aimed at keeping it as low as possible while still operating the business. 

On benefits some I've seen are: access to corporate houses, private planes, tax preparation, club memberships, private drivers, clothing allowance, dry cleaning, cars, and buying services. One of the bravest things I witnessed was an employee response when a (female) VP was admonishing the staff for not being dedicated enough, not available enough after hours and weekends, and not committed enough to department goals. The guy said something like, "XYZ, I'm legally blind, can't drive and my family needs me, we struggle. When I work extra hours then finally get home I still have to cut the grass, sweep, shop for groceries, prepare meals, help the kids with homework and help my wife. My day is full without working extra hours. When you get home your pantry is full because you have someone that buys groceries for you. Your laundry is done because you can afford dry cleaning and have a maid. Your house is clean because you have a house cleaning service. Your adopted kid is taken care of because you have someone to take care of that. Your pool is clean and ready to go. So when you work 10-12 hours when you get home your day is over. You get to relax by the pool with a drink. When I work 10 hours I still have 2-4 hours of work before I can relax. Sometimes I never get to relax. When I get to work I try to not think about my personal issues and dedicate myself to the work. These type conversations make it very difficult be dedicated. I don't begrudge you for what you have but please understand that our lives are quite different." WOW, the blind guy with the most to lose said what all of us were thinking. She was fired, not for this but for lying to the Ex team and the Board. 

I've said that if they fired an Executive they could replace that position at half the salary. It would still be a huge salary and there would be many qualified applicants. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, airdvr said:

I think your hero Obama just about killed the notion of full time entry level positions by forcing the employer to provide insurance.

That must be the reason why there are 11,000,000 unfilled job openings in the US right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, airdvr said:

I think your hero Obama just about killed the notion of full time entry level positions by forcing the employer to provide insurance.

Well that’s obvious bullshit, so I can’t for the life of me fathom what point you’re trying to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billeisele said:
1 hour ago, billeisele said:

CEO compensation is out of balance. There are many reasons for it, some are:
- some believe that they use it as a way to keep score as to who is the biggest and baddest, in some ways it's the old "my wiener is bigger than yours" game

 

I think the same can be said about athletes also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, jakee said:

Well that’s obvious bullshit, so I can’t for the life of me fathom what point you’re trying to make.

President Obama laid the groundwork for the present employment position in the US. Whereby there is the horrendous labor position of 11,000,000 jobs sitting, wasting away, with nobody working in them. That he didn't let in enough immigrants to fill those jobs. Obviously from non-sh*&hole countries. White christian type ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple.  ACA moved people off full time entry level to part time entry level.

I agree that the bottom line decisions made by businesses are to please the shareholders and not in the interest of the workers but this was stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is stupid is making health insurance a "perk" offered through the workplace, and sometimes only to management.  In the civilized world health insurance is universal.  One consequence of that is that businesses are not burdened with having to pay for insurance for any of their work force. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, wmw999 said:

I have a feeling it’s a feedback loop; not only does corruption drive inequality, but it works the other way, too. The less sharing there is of power and influence (and these days that translates to money), the more willing more people are to game the system, or simply straight out cheat, because they know they absolutely don’t have access to the kind of money that buys that power. To me, that means it behooves the sharing of power and money, and more importantly, the redefinition of what “enough” power or money is. Because (and we all like to pick on CEO’s these days) CEO’s all think they deserve and need all that money, as it determines their worth, too.

Wendy P. 

Sorry to be the one to break bad news but most folks are on the teetering edge of some form of larceny most of the time. For some it's the tiniest thing that causes mental anguish like the guy who told me he used the same coupon twice at the Safeway self checkout. Poor bastard probably got therapy. Others only pretend to put money in the poor box, others go bankrupt every 7 years, or don't pay back loans to family, and others try to negotiate down contracts signed in good faith. Not everyone needs to completely impoverish their fellows to feel good about themselves, but they are all around and watching you all of the time.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Sorry to be the one to break bad news but most folks are on the teetering edge of some form of larceny most of the time. For some it's the tiniest thing that causes mental anguish like the guy who told me he used the same coupon twice at the Safeway self checkout. Poor bastard probably got therapy. Others only pretend to put money in the poor box, others go bankrupt every 7 years, or don't pay back loans to family, and others try to negotiate down contracts signed in good faith. Not everyone needs to completely impoverish their fellows to feel good about themselves, but they are all around and watching you all of the time.........

Kinda like DZ operators that skimp on maintenance because most maintenance is a waste of money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Simple.  ACA moved people off full time entry level to part time entry level.

I agree that the bottom line decisions made by businesses are to please the shareholders and not in the interest of the workers but this was stupid.

What was stupid was, and is, the right wing refusal to recognize the enormous benefits of some form of basic national healthcare. You'd be better calling it McConnell Care: it was your peeps that made any more sensible plan, including Medicare for all, an impossibility. So we got the ACA, well, thank you very much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Kinda like DZ operators that skimp on maintenance because most maintenance is a waste of money?

Yes. Unfortunately skydiving is like candy bars: no one has a clue how much crap they're actually buying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, airdvr said:

I think your hero Obama just about killed the notion of full time entry level positions by forcing the employer to provide insurance.

 

1 hour ago, airdvr said:

Simple.  ACA moved people off full time entry level to part time entry level.

I agree that the bottom line decisions made by businesses are to please the shareholders and not in the interest of the workers but this was stupid.

Funny how the conservatives preventing the US from enacting universal health care is Obama's fault.

Funny how EVERY OTHER  industrialized country in the world has that sort of health care.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, airdvr said:

Simple.  ACA moved people off full time entry level to part time entry level.

Again, not only is this clearly bullshit, it’s exactly the point that I was making. In a world where the executives, directors and shareholders of those companies are seeing their pay packets increase many times over from a point of comfortable wealth to extravagant riches, you’ve decided that the problems start when they’re forced to give their base level workers access to healthcare.

This is obscene. It’s absolute fucking lunacy to believe any so-called economist who tells you this is the way the world has to be in order for it to function.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

Kinda like DZ operators that skimp on maintenance because most maintenance is a waste of money?

Hey!

I resemble that remark!

I worked at 2 DZs that "saved" money on maintenance but eventually crashed airplanes. I narrowly missed being killed when a Beech 18 crashed at Hinckley, Illinois during 1992. Fast forward to 2008 and was injured when a Beechcraft King Air force-landed near Pitt Meadows, Canada. I suffered multiple injuries during the second crash and some of my injuries never fully healed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jakee said:

Again, not only is this clearly bullshit, it’s exactly the point that I was making. In a world where the executives, directors and shareholders of those companies are seeing their pay packets increase many times over from a point of comfortable wealth to extravagant riches, you’ve decided that the problems start when they’re forced to give their base level workers access to healthcare.

This is obscene. It’s absolute fucking lunacy to believe any so-called economist who tells you this is the way the world has to be in order for it to function.

I suspect that management salaries is still only 1 or 2 percent of the total corporate budget.

My theory holds that management salaries are just part of the screening process because corporations hope that CEOs who are able to negotiate large salaries for themselves will devote equal energy to negotiating contracts that are equally profitable for the corporation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, airdvr said:

Simple.  ACA moved people off full time entry level to part time entry level.

I agree that the bottom line decisions made by businesses are to please the shareholders and not in the interest of the workers but this was stupid.

ACA ended up quite different from Obama's proposal thanks to obstructionism from the GOP.  You might want to check your history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, jakee said:

Well that’s obvious bullshit, so I can’t for the life of me fathom what point you’re trying to make.

The point is obvious. Low income earners are bottom feeders and don’t deserve to have health care because airdvr might have to pay more for his restaurant meal.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
On 7/1/2022 at 6:11 PM, riggerrob said:

I suspect that management salaries is still only 1 or 2 percent of the total corporate budget.

Possibly, though again in many cases executives have the power to spend enormous sums of company money on strategies that directly benefit their own bonus schemes. And changing the goalposts a little, the amount of cash that flows out of businesses to just a few people can be a lot more than that.

Take the case of the wealthiest shop owner in the world, a man with so much spare cash he can afford to get into a pissing contest with his best frenemy over who can be the first to build a crewed, heavy lift interplanetary spaceship and not even notice the expenditure - but who also fights tooth and nail against any effort by his low-totem warehouse workers to unionise*. Because allowing them shorter shifts, better benefits and acceptable workplace health and safety would obviously be an unwise use of the company's money.

 

And according to the voodoo economists this is how it has to be. The richest have to be allowed to continue to accumulate wealth that would have been undreamed of even a decade ago otherwise they wouldn't be able to provide the jobs we all need. But hold on! Better make sure those jobs aren't actually well paid or those super rich people will decide to just sit on their gigantic piles of gold and do nothing instead. It's like they're selling us Schrodinger's trickle down economy. It's fucking bullshit.

 

* Could he be a better model of a Bond villain come to life?

Edited by jakee
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

1 1