Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

You Are A Job Creator (If You Are Part Of The Middle Class)


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#16 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,318 posts

Posted 19 May 2012 - 08:50 AM

Anyone who spends money is a job creator. I just recently did some upgrades on my house and hired a contractor to do the work. He hired a couple of people to help him. Created about two weeks worth of work. Therefore, I am a job creator. Same guy also did some work for the retired airline pilot that lives behind me. That guy has a lot more money than I do, and he had a couple of months worth of upgrades, so he created more jobs, or at least jobs that lasted longer. It doesn't bother me a bit that he has more money than me, because he earned it. He is a bigger job creator, because he has more money. Nothing earth shattering about any of this.

#17 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,164 posts

Posted 19 May 2012 - 09:00 AM

Several ways to look at job creation as it pertains to leaving money in the private sector. The investment portion is one of the items overlooked. Many have a great idea and need investors to get them started. If the gov takes a bigger portion of this money and "blows" it, then there is obviously less to invest in small ventures.

common sense that companies don't just one day decide to hire more people unless something like demand, or long term tax benefit changes

#18 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,093 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 19 May 2012 - 02:04 PM

Several ways to look at job creation as it pertains to leaving money in the private sector. The investment portion is one of the items overlooked. Many have a great idea and need investors to get them started. If the gov takes a bigger portion of this money and "blows" it, then there is obviously less to invest in small ventures.

common sense that companies don't just one day decide to hire more people unless something like demand, or long term tax benefit changes


That guy has a lot more money than I do, and he had a couple of months worth of upgrades, so he created more jobs, or at least jobs that lasted longer. It doesn't bother me a bit that he has more money than me, because he earned it. He is a bigger job creator, because he has more money. Nothing earth shattering about any of this.


Warning: Rant On/

There are very few Americans who begrudge those that worked hard and were fortunate enough to realize their dreams. So please already, stop the GOP straw-man rhetoric about people envying the rich. That is not what this is about. Nick Hanauer is likely richer than anyone most of us know and has started dozens of businesses. I doubt he envies anyone, at least not financially.

Here is the problem as I see it:

In the 1970s the average CEO earned around twenty times what his average worker did and paid a higher rate of taxes. He lived a very good life, if not a privileged one.

Today the average CEO earns hundreds of times what his average worker earns and pays a historically low tax rate, often lower than his employees.

This isn't because the CEOs are 100s of times smarter than they were 40 years ago or the average worker is somehow less productive.

It is simply that corporate executives at the top of the food chain decided to elevate their own compensation through incestuous corporate boards that give each other raises, bonuses and golden parachutes, while eliminating meaningful raises for their employees to make the bottom line look better and justify more raises and stock options for themselves. See Bain Capital for more details.

The result is many average Americans that would have had a living wage and been able to purchase a car or home to improve their own lives and stimulate the economy or pay more taxes to reduce the federal debt, are just barely making enough to stay off food stamps, if they are even able to do that.

These people are not lazy, many are working harder each day than the CEOs that are spending time on the golf course making deals and scheming with lobbyist on how to create a new loop hole in the tax code to evade contributing to the United States of America that provided these same CEOs with all the opportunities they now seem to take for granted.

This is about a system that has become so perverted that a very small percentage of our society (Anointed "The Job Creators" by the GOP and FOX) has decided to keep the vast majority of wealth our workers generate for themselves (The real Class Warfare is against the 99 per-centers and it has been going on for decades) while denying our country the resources it needs to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Note: See the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights for more information.

/Rant Off

#19 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,318 posts

Posted 19 May 2012 - 05:03 PM

Warning: Rant On/

Here is the problem as I see it.

In the 1970s the average CEO earned around twenty times what his average worker did and paid a higher rate of taxes. He lived a very good, if not a privileged life.

Today the average CEO earns hundreds of times what his average worker earns and pays a historically low tax rate, often lower than his employees.


I don't think its true that the AVERAGE CEO earns hundreds of times what the average worker earns. . According to Salary.com, the median salary for a CEO is about $700,000 per year. Perhaps you mean the average fortune 500 CEO or something along that line.

I am not sure what a good CEO is worth, but since I worked for Wachovia, I saw what a bad one can do. Wachovia had a bad one, and he destroyed the company, cost thousands of jobs, not to mention hundreds of millions in lost stock value for people who had held wachovia stock for a long time. I wish that Wachovia would have paid a Jamie Dimon or a John Stumpf a huge salary so that the company would still exist and a lot of my friends would not have lost their jobs.

#20 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,164 posts

Posted 19 May 2012 - 05:08 PM

I don't think its true that the AVERAGE CEO earns hundreds of times what the average worker earns. . According to Salary.com, the median salary for a CEO is about $700,000 per year. Perhaps you mean the average fortune 500 CEO or something along that line.

I am not sure what a good CEO is worth, but since I worked for Wachovia, I saw what a bad one can do. Wachovia had a bad one, and he destroyed the company, cost thousands of jobs, not to mention hundreds of millions in lost stock value for people who had held wachovia stock for a long time. I wish that Wachovia would have paid a Jamie Dimon or a John Stumpf a huge salary so that the company would still exist and a lot of my friends would not have lost their jobs.

Here you are injecting facts again. What, you want to screw up the rants?

#21 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,093 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 19 May 2012 - 05:51 PM

I don't think its true that the AVERAGE CEO earns hundreds of times what the average worker earns. . According to Salary.com, the median salary for a CEO is about $700,000 per year. Perhaps you mean the average fortune 500 CEO or something along that line.

I am not sure what a good CEO is worth, but since I worked for Wachovia, I saw what a bad one can do. Wachovia had a bad one, and he destroyed the company, cost thousands of jobs, not to mention hundreds of millions in lost stock value for people who had held wachovia stock for a long time. I wish that Wachovia would have paid a Jamie Dimon or a John Stumpf a huge salary so that the company would still exist and a lot of my friends would not have lost their jobs.

Here you are injecting facts again. What, you want to screw up the rants?


First off, sorry about Wachovia. I am truly sad for all the workers that lost their jobs due to the greed and incompetence at the highest levels of that organization. I really hated to see that happen. If it had been a NY Bank, I am pretty sure the outcome would have been more favorable.

Good point, these numbers do apply more so to the Fortune 500. However, (I am trying to be a little more selective in my wording here, than I was in my rant) executive compensation encompasses, as I’m sure you know, much more than a simple salary.


Posted Image

Source: Economic Policy Institute. 2011

Executive pay (also executive compensation), is financial compensation received by an officer of a firm. It is typically a mixture of salary, bonuses, shares of and/or call options on the company stock, benefits, and perquisites, ideally configured to take into account government regulations, tax law, the desires of the organization and the executive, and rewards for performance.[1] Over the past three decades, executive pay has risen dramatically relative to that of an average worker's wage in the United States

Here is a liink to the rest of the disscusion about executive pay:

http://en.wikipedia....erald_Tribune-4

#22 natty

natty

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,731 posts

Posted 19 May 2012 - 08:00 PM

I don't think its true that the AVERAGE CEO earns hundreds of times what the average worker earns. . According to Salary.com, the median salary for a CEO is about $700,000 per year. Perhaps you mean the average fortune 500 CEO or something along that line.

I am not sure what a good CEO is worth, but since I worked for Wachovia, I saw what a bad one can do. Wachovia had a bad one, and he destroyed the company, cost thousands of jobs, not to mention hundreds of millions in lost stock value for people who had held wachovia stock for a long time. I wish that Wachovia would have paid a Jamie Dimon or a John Stumpf a huge salary so that the company would still exist and a lot of my friends would not have lost their jobs.


Salary/pay statistics can be horribly skewed to enforce people's biases and liberals do it a lot more than conservatives imo. But you also have to look at how top executives are often given other forms of compensation, like stock options, mostly because it makes sense for them to have a stake in the companies they run, but also because at that level of wealth capitol gains gets you more bang for your buck. All in all I don't think straight up salary comparison is fair, but people do tend to gravitate towards the most extreme cases when it helps their arguments.

Surely you can see the point of the video was not about income equality but how republicans have used the 'job creator' terminology to get and maintain the lower taxes they want(I realize you were just responding to a particular post though). That kind of ties into the TED stuff. I think they were weary of it because it was an obvious jab at republicans and, although TED is mostly liberal and supportive of democrats, they still like to have themselves perceived as non-partisan. The speaker could have been more eloquent and not deliberately thrown stones at republicans.

#23 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,318 posts

Posted 19 May 2012 - 10:26 PM

First off, sorry about Wachovia. I am truly sad for all the workers that lost their jobs due to the greed and incompetence at the highest levels of that organization. I really hated to see that happen. If it had been a NY Bank, I am pretty sure the outcome would have been more favorable.

Good point, these numbers do apply more so to the Fortune 500. However, (I am trying to be a little more selective in my wording here, than I was in my rant) executive compensation encompasses, as I’m sure you know, much more than a simple salary.


Posted Image

Source: Economic Policy Institute. 2011

Executive pay (also executive compensation), is financial compensation received by an officer of a firm. It is typically a mixture of salary, bonuses, shares of and/or call options on the company stock, benefits, and perquisites, ideally configured to take into account government regulations, tax law, the desires of the organization and the executive, and rewards for performance.[1] Over the past three decades, executive pay has risen dramatically relative to that of an average worker's wage in the United States

Here is a liink to the rest of the disscusion about executive pay:

http://en.wikipedia....erald_Tribune-4


No doubt that CEO's get pay in different ways. And again, no doubt that their pay has risen dramatically. But there are a lot of CEO's, some of which manage companies with only a handful of employees. Their salaries don't come anywhere close to the numbers that the fortune 500 guys make. But of course, the fortune 500 guys really skew the average quite a bit. :)

But to be honest, I am not really concerned about CEO pay. Their pay is high, and it makes them a target, but imo their pay is largely irrelevant irt the economy and how americans as a whole are doing. In a fortune 500 company, CEO pay makes up a very small percentage of the payroll.

Instead of talking about CEO pay, tell me how much average pay has risen compared to inflation. That is a far better indication of how the middle class is doing (and how many jobs it can create) than doing a comparison of CEO versus the average worker. Better yet, tell me how many hours the average worker has to work to afford the basics of life (food, clothing, shelter). There was an article I posted here some time ago (wish I could find it now) that showed the amount of hours that a laborer had to work to purchase things like milk, or gas, or some of the other basics of modern day life. In effect, the amount of labor hadn't changed. On average, people are doing about the same now as then. Of course, the big problem is that we have more debt, and less savings, but thats for another thread.

#24 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,318 posts

Posted 19 May 2012 - 10:32 PM

Salary/pay statistics can be horribly skewed to enforce people's biases and liberals do it a lot more than conservatives imo. But you also have to look at how top executives are often given other forms of compensation, like stock options, mostly because it makes sense for them to have a stake in the companies they run, but also because at that level of wealth capitol gains gets you more bang for your buck. All in all I don't think straight up salary comparison is fair, but people do tend to gravitate towards the most extreme cases when it helps their arguments.

Surely you can see the point of the video was not about income equality but how republicans have used the 'job creator' terminology to get and maintain the lower taxes they want(I realize you were just responding to a particular post though). That kind of ties into the TED stuff. I think they were weary of it because it was an obvious jab at republicans and, although TED is mostly liberal and supportive of democrats, they still like to have themselves perceived as non-partisan. The speaker could have been more eloquent and not deliberately thrown stones at republicans.


I generally don't watch video's that are posted here, in part because so many of them are conspiracy stuff (I realize this one isn't), and in part because my computer is old and slow and I am a tightwad who refuses to get a new one until I absolutely have to. :)

#25 chris999

chris999

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,023 posts
  • LocationFlorida

Posted 19 May 2012 - 11:21 PM

Sadly, when you realize that a large number of Americans base their decision of who to vote for off simple bumper sticker catch phrases like, Obama Is Dividing America, Stop the War on Job Creators, Stop Obama Care Death Panels, and Drill Baby Drill!, it is hard see a way to turn this country around.

Almost half the population votes against their own best interests!

Why do they want to go right back to the policies that have decimated the wages of 99% of Americans over the last 30 years?


You know... There are quite a few people on the board who agree with you and have been saying this same stuff over and over. Always telling people to 'wake up'.

Here it is years later, and our economy is almost collapsed and people are only now starting to see that we have been right all along, and that they need to wake up at the wheel, because it's been heading for the ditch for 20+ years on cruise control.

good post.

#26 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,093 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 19 May 2012 - 11:24 PM

No doubt that CEO's get pay in different ways. And again, no doubt that their pay has risen dramatically. But there are a lot of CEO's, some of which manage companies with only a handful of employees. Their salaries don't come anywhere close to the numbers that the fortune 500 guys make. But of course, the fortune 500 guys really skew the average quite a bit. :)

But to be honest, I am not really concerned about CEO pay. Their pay is high, and it makes them a target, but imo their pay is largely irrelevant irt the economy and how americans as a whole are doing. In a fortune 500 company, CEO pay makes up a very small percentage of the payroll.

Instead of talking about CEO pay, tell me how much average pay has risen compared to inflation. That is a far better indication of how the middle class is doing (and how many jobs it can create) than doing a comparison of CEO versus the average worker. Better yet, tell me how many hours the average worker has to work to afford the basics of life (food, clothing, shelter). There was an article I posted here some time ago (wish I could find it now) that showed the amount of hours that a laborer had to work to purchase things like milk, or gas, or some of the other basics of modern day life. In effect, the amount of labor hadn't changed. On average, people are doing about the same now as then. Of course, the big problem is that we have more debt, and less savings, but thats for another thread.


Deac,

Thanks for your response and you are right, in the big picture the salaries of the executives are not going to be the demise of our society.

It does speak to their hypocrisy as CEOs though, when the corporate bottom line is used as their justification for reducing work force, wages and bonuses for the line level workers/middle managers and yet this logic doesn't seem to apply to their executive wages. It is clearly a double standard.

Executive wages have risen virtually unabated (other than 9/11 and 08 crash) to historic levels not seen since the age of the Robber Barons.

I do have some information that indicates real wages for most Americans have declined or remained stagnant over the last several decades in relation to inflation. I'll post it in the near future.

Hope you decide to get a new computer soon, there are some very informative (non conspiracy) video clips out there!


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.