Wendy's To Switch To Self Ordering And Robot Burger Maker To Avoid $15/Hr Wage

[(ob)Scene]

Wage increase should come with profitability not productivity. A CEO makes more because their job when done correctly is more profitable to the enterprise

ceo's still make millions when companies are failing

they should not but they still do deserve to make much more than the average worker because they set the whole agenda and carry it out

How much more?

It depends on the individual company and industry. why should i pay a minimum wage worker 15 an hour if doing so will lessen the profitability of my enterprise???? and make it less competitive with the other companies in my industry??

Less competitive? Nigga...

In the second experiment, Ariely and Norton asked participants to guess how wealth was distributed in the United States, and then to write how it would be divvied up in an ideal world (this, it seems, served as the template for Norton’s most recent study). Americans had little idea how concentrated wealth truly was. Subjects estimated that the top 20 percent of U.S. households owned about 59 percent of the country’s net worth, whereas in the real world, they owned about 84 percent of it. In their own private utopia, subjects said that the top quintile would claim just 32 percent of the wealth.

“People drastically underestimate the current disparities in wealth and income in their societies,” Norton told me in an email, “and their ideals are more equal than their estimates, which are already more equal than the actual levels. Maybe most importantly, people from all walks of life—Democrats and Republicans, rich and poor, all over the world—have a large degree of consensus in their ideals: Everyone’s ideals are more equal than the way they think things are.” Theoretically, Americans aren’t exceptional in their views about distribution at all—they have a sense of fairness similar to that of Germans, French, and Australians, and most Americans would be offended if they actually knew the degree of economic inequality that exists in this country.
http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...nequality_is_new_harvard_business_school.html

So this next excerpt from that same article summates it all...

In the 1960s, the typical corporate chieftain in the U.S. earned 20 times as much as the average employee. Today, depending on whose estimate you choose, he makes anywhere from 272 to 354 times as much. According to the AFL-CIO, the average CEO takes home more than $12 million, while the average worker makes about $34,000.

So basically Americans THINK the ratio of CEO to employee pay is about 30:1.

Ask them what the ratio would be in their utopia and they say about 7:1.

The shit is really anywhere from 272-354:1.

But you bitching about $15 an hour.

i think your missing the point.....raising someones wages who is at the "bottom" of the totem pole will make everything else up eventually...because no one wants to be out done if they are at the same level and no one is going to take a pay cut

No, you're the one missing the point. Like badly missing the point.

I already addressed and shut down that mindset clear as day on the previous page. Swallow your insecurities because no one at the same level should be taking pay cuts. You're vastly misunderstanding who it is that should be taking pay cuts... and not all of them would even be paycuts since most profits end up being bonuses on top of salaries already earned.

You're mad at the idea of a person doing just as much work as you (just a different type of work) for earning the same pay. But you're not upset that one person at the top of the ladder takes the extra earnings off of your labor and gives himself 300 times more than what you make. FOH.

the people i am talking about who wont be taking paycuts are the people are the top of the ladder.

damn you hurling insults without properly trying to get a clear understand of what could be taken as miscommunication

Not saying "you" directly, bro. I'm using it in place of those that share that mindset b/c those people do exist. The issue of people at the top not being willing to take pay cuts is where the reforms come into place. Tax those above a certain monetary threshold, raise the minimum wage, create trade taxes that dissuade businesses from outsourcing jobs. There's a multitude of things that can be done.

I personally believe it would have to be eased into but first and foremost we have to kill this belief amongst Americans that this is how it has always worked. The masses have become complacent with being the underclass to the point where you have people earning $80,000 annually sticking their noses up; not knowing they're being underpaid too.

 

[Tymoney19]

automation was always going to happen regardless of the minimum wage increase. That's why I went into the IT field and got my CS degree. This is the new future of Capitalist America. Unskilled workers will eventually be fazed out and simple become manual labors.

 

[zzombie]

Wage increase should come with profitability not productivity. A CEO makes more because their job when done correctly is more profitable to the enterprise

ceo's still make millions when companies are failing

they should not but they still do deserve to make much more than the average worker because they set the whole agenda and carry it out

How much more?

It depends on the individual company and industry. why should i pay a minimum wage worker 15 an hour if doing so will lessen the profitability of my enterprise???? and make it less competitive with the other companies in my industry??

Less competitive? Nigga...

In the second experiment, Ariely and Norton asked participants to guess how wealth was distributed in the United States, and then to write how it would be divvied up in an ideal world (this, it seems, served as the template for Norton’s most recent study). Americans had little idea how concentrated wealth truly was. Subjects estimated that the top 20 percent of U.S. households owned about 59 percent of the country’s net worth, whereas in the real world, they owned about 84 percent of it. In their own private utopia, subjects said that the top quintile would claim just 32 percent of the wealth.

“People drastically underestimate the current disparities in wealth and income in their societies,” Norton told me in an email, “and their ideals are more equal than their estimates, which are already more equal than the actual levels. Maybe most importantly, people from all walks of life—Democrats and Republicans, rich and poor, all over the world—have a large degree of consensus in their ideals: Everyone’s ideals are more equal than the way they think things are.” Theoretically, Americans aren’t exceptional in their views about distribution at all—they have a sense of fairness similar to that of Germans, French, and Australians, and most Americans would be offended if they actually knew the degree of economic inequality that exists in this country.
http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...nequality_is_new_harvard_business_school.html

So this next excerpt from that same article summates it all...

In the 1960s, the typical corporate chieftain in the U.S. earned 20 times as much as the average employee. Today, depending on whose estimate you choose, he makes anywhere from 272 to 354 times as much. According to the AFL-CIO, the average CEO takes home more than $12 million, while the average worker makes about $34,000.

So basically Americans THINK the ratio of CEO to employee pay is about 30:1.

Ask them what the ratio would be in their utopia and they say about 7:1.

The shit is really anywhere from 272-354:1.

But you bitching about $15 an hour.

That has nothing to do with what i said at all you need to stop being so emotional and pay attention to what i am actually saying. why should i pay you 15$ an hour??? if doing so will lose me potential money what makes you worth that amount

 

[2stepz_ahead]

Wage increase should come with profitability not productivity. A CEO makes more because their job when done correctly is more profitable to the enterprise

ceo's still make millions when companies are failing

they should not but they still do deserve to make much more than the average worker because they set the whole agenda and carry it out

How much more?

It depends on the individual company and industry. why should i pay a minimum wage worker 15 an hour if doing so will lessen the profitability of my enterprise???? and make it less competitive with the other companies in my industry??

Less competitive? Nigga...

In the second experiment, Ariely and Norton asked participants to guess how wealth was distributed in the United States, and then to write how it would be divvied up in an ideal world (this, it seems, served as the template for Norton’s most recent study). Americans had little idea how concentrated wealth truly was. Subjects estimated that the top 20 percent of U.S. households owned about 59 percent of the country’s net worth, whereas in the real world, they owned about 84 percent of it. In their own private utopia, subjects said that the top quintile would claim just 32 percent of the wealth.

“People drastically underestimate the current disparities in wealth and income in their societies,” Norton told me in an email, “and their ideals are more equal than their estimates, which are already more equal than the actual levels. Maybe most importantly, people from all walks of life—Democrats and Republicans, rich and poor, all over the world—have a large degree of consensus in their ideals: Everyone’s ideals are more equal than the way they think things are.” Theoretically, Americans aren’t exceptional in their views about distribution at all—they have a sense of fairness similar to that of Germans, French, and Australians, and most Americans would be offended if they actually knew the degree of economic inequality that exists in this country.
http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...nequality_is_new_harvard_business_school.html

So this next excerpt from that same article summates it all...

In the 1960s, the typical corporate chieftain in the U.S. earned 20 times as much as the average employee. Today, depending on whose estimate you choose, he makes anywhere from 272 to 354 times as much. According to the AFL-CIO, the average CEO takes home more than $12 million, while the average worker makes about $34,000.

So basically Americans THINK the ratio of CEO to employee pay is about 30:1.

Ask them what the ratio would be in their utopia and they say about 7:1.

The shit is really anywhere from 272-354:1.

But you bitching about $15 an hour.

i think your missing the point.....raising someones wages who is at the "bottom" of the totem pole will make everything else up eventually...because no one wants to be out done if they are at the same level and no one is going to take a pay cut

No, you're the one missing the point. Like badly missing the point.

I already addressed and shut down that mindset clear as day on the previous page. Swallow your insecurities because no one at the same level should be taking pay cuts. You're vastly misunderstanding who it is that should be taking pay cuts... and not all of them would even be paycuts since most profits end up being bonuses on top of salaries already earned.

You're mad at the idea of a person doing just as much work as you (just a different type of work) for earning the same pay. But you're not upset that one person at the top of the ladder takes the extra earnings off of your labor and gives himself 300 times more than what you make. FOH.

the people i am talking about who wont be taking paycuts are the people are the top of the ladder.

damn you hurling insults without properly trying to get a clear understand of what could be taken as miscommunication

Not saying "you" directly, bro. I'm using it in place of those that share that mindset b/c those people do exist. The issue of people at the top not being willing to take pay cuts is where the reforms come into place. Tax those above a certain monetary threshold, raise the minimum wage, create trade taxes that dissuade businesses from outsourcing jobs. There's a multitude of things that can be done.

I personally believe it would have to be eased into but first and foremost we have to kill this belief amongst Americans that this is how it has always worked. The masses have become complacent with being the underclass to the point where you have people earning $80,000 annually sticking their noses up; not knowing they're being underpaid too.

well i see a few problems.

they are going to make it harder and harder to earn decent money.

i hear you need a high school diploma to work at fast food...slowly but surely a degree is needed for dumb shit.

thats why i think the hood is needed more than not needed to make people feel better abut themselves and feel they made it in the middle class.

alot of those ceo's are not smart. they are just connected. the higher you go up the ladder the more who you know is more important than what you know. its what you know that gets you invite to the table to get to know who to know.

but thats another story

some of these dudes is making millions on millions and wont give it up because they think they deserve it. regardless of having a company stock drop 20% or more. they still stick out they chest and walk away with they head up.

they also share tax advice on how to avoid taxes and how to hide money. taxing the rich will only result in more people forfeiting their citizenship because they have the means to relocate and wont give a shit....its really a shame

 

[zzombie]

Wage increase should come with profitability not productivity. A CEO makes more because their job when done correctly is more profitable to the enterprise

ceo's still make millions when companies are failing

they should not but they still do deserve to make much more than the average worker because they set the whole agenda and carry it out

How much more?

It depends on the individual company and industry. why should i pay a minimum wage worker 15 an hour if doing so will lessen the profitability of my enterprise???? and make it less competitive with the other companies in my industry??

And this is the inherent flaw of capitalism...it is completely focused on the individual....and in this case "corporation are people". Wendy's has all incentive to do what's best for Wendy's to maximize profits as much as possible even if it is at the expense of society as a whole.

If corporations are people, then they are the most sociopathic and apathetic people to have ever lived.

why should these corporations care???? when a government does it's job people can benefit from corporate selfishness

 

[LUClEN]

I'm surprised they didn't do this sooner

I honestly dgaf if I order my sammich from a machine or a person, as long as it's made proper

 

[2stepz_ahead]

I'm surprised they didn't do this sooner

I honestly dgaf if I order my sammich from a machine or a person, as long as it's made proper

machines fukk up and dont have the adaptability of a human. you could be getting machine oil rather than vegetable oil.

may be good now.....just cost you a liver later

 

[zzombie]

Wage increase should come with profitability not productivity. A CEO makes more because their job when done correctly is more profitable to the enterprise

ceo's still make millions when companies are failing

they should not but they still do deserve to make much more than the average worker because they set the whole agenda and carry it out

How much more?

It depends on the individual company and industry. why should i pay a minimum wage worker 15 an hour if doing so will lessen the profitability of my enterprise???? and make it less competitive with the other companies in my industry??

Less competitive? Nigga...

In the second experiment, Ariely and Norton asked participants to guess how wealth was distributed in the United States, and then to write how it would be divvied up in an ideal world (this, it seems, served as the template for Norton’s most recent study). Americans had little idea how concentrated wealth truly was. Subjects estimated that the top 20 percent of U.S. households owned about 59 percent of the country’s net worth, whereas in the real world, they owned about 84 percent of it. In their own private utopia, subjects said that the top quintile would claim just 32 percent of the wealth.

“People drastically underestimate the current disparities in wealth and income in their societies,” Norton told me in an email, “and their ideals are more equal than their estimates, which are already more equal than the actual levels. Maybe most importantly, people from all walks of life—Democrats and Republicans, rich and poor, all over the world—have a large degree of consensus in their ideals: Everyone’s ideals are more equal than the way they think things are.” Theoretically, Americans aren’t exceptional in their views about distribution at all—they have a sense of fairness similar to that of Germans, French, and Australians, and most Americans would be offended if they actually knew the degree of economic inequality that exists in this country.
http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...nequality_is_new_harvard_business_school.html

So this next excerpt from that same article summates it all...

In the 1960s, the typical corporate chieftain in the U.S. earned 20 times as much as the average employee. Today, depending on whose estimate you choose, he makes anywhere from 272 to 354 times as much. According to the AFL-CIO, the average CEO takes home more than $12 million, while the average worker makes about $34,000.

So basically Americans THINK the ratio of CEO to employee pay is about 30:1.

Ask them what the ratio would be in their utopia and they say about 7:1.

The shit is really anywhere from 272-354:1.

But you bitching about $15 an hour.

i think your missing the point.....raising someones wages who is at the "bottom" of the totem pole will make everything else up eventually...because no one wants to be out done if they are at the same level and no one is going to take a pay cut

No, you're the one missing the point. Like badly missing the point.

I already addressed and shut down that mindset clear as day on the previous page. Swallow your insecurities because no one at the same level should be taking pay cuts. You're vastly misunderstanding who it is that should be taking pay cuts... and not all of them would even be paycuts since most profits end up being bonuses on top of salaries already earned.

You're mad at the idea of a person doing just as much work as you (just a different type of work) for earning the same pay. But you're not upset that one person at the top of the ladder takes the extra earnings off of your labor and gives himself 300 times more than what you make. FOH.

the people i am talking about who wont be taking paycuts are the people are the top of the ladder.

damn you hurling insults without properly trying to get a clear understand of what could be taken as miscommunication

Not saying "you" directly, bro. I'm using it in place of those that share that mindset b/c those people do exist. The issue of people at the top not being willing to take pay cuts is where the reforms come into place. Tax those above a certain monetary threshold, raise the minimum wage, create trade taxes that dissuade businesses from outsourcing jobs. There's a multitude of things that can be done.

I personally believe it would have to be eased into but first and foremost we have to kill this belief amongst Americans that this is how it has always worked. The masses have become complacent with being the underclass to the point where you have people earning $80,000 annually sticking their noses up; not knowing they're being underpaid too.

It;s a private fucking enterprise why the fuck do you feel you have the right to tell people how much a ceo should be paid. If reforms needs to take place it will happen within the corporation. like i told @Stiff in the other thread if you are going to tax me at stupid levels i am going to leave there is something called corporate inversion.

 

[Stiff]

Wage increase should come with profitability not productivity. A CEO makes more because their job when done correctly is more profitable to the enterprise

ceo's still make millions when companies are failing

they should not but they still do deserve to make much more than the average worker because they set the whole agenda and carry it out

How much more?

It depends on the individual company and industry. why should i pay a minimum wage worker 15 an hour if doing so will lessen the profitability of my enterprise???? and make it less competitive with the other companies in my industry??

And this is the inherent flaw of capitalism...it is completely focused on the individual....and in this case "corporation are people". Wendy's has all incentive to do what's best for Wendy's to maximize profits as much as possible even if it is at the expense of society as a whole.

If corporations are people, then they are the most sociopathic and apathetic people to have ever lived.

why should these corporations care???? when a government does it's job people can benefit from corporate selfishness

what's the government's job? Taxing?

didn't you just say if you're taxed as a businessman you're going to find a way to leave?

 

[zzombie]

Wage increase should come with profitability not productivity. A CEO makes more because their job when done correctly is more profitable to the enterprise

ceo's still make millions when companies are failing

they should not but they still do deserve to make much more than the average worker because they set the whole agenda and carry it out

How much more?

It depends on the individual company and industry. why should i pay a minimum wage worker 15 an hour if doing so will lessen the profitability of my enterprise???? and make it less competitive with the other companies in my industry??

And this is the inherent flaw of capitalism...it is completely focused on the individual....and in this case "corporation are people". Wendy's has all incentive to do what's best for Wendy's to maximize profits as much as possible even if it is at the expense of society as a whole.

If corporations are people, then they are the most sociopathic and apathetic people to have ever lived.

why should these corporations care???? when a government does it's job people can benefit from corporate selfishness

what's the government's job? Taxing?

didn't you just say if you're taxed as a businessman you're going to find a way to leave?

No i said if i was taxed to a stupid level i would leave, do you understand??? businesses will leave, all those who can afford to leave will leave. ironically you people want to tax big corporations but all you are going to do is end up picking on smaller corporations.Those THAT do not have the resources to leave.

One of the jobs of government is to tax to provide public services that are for the common good but stupid taxes hurt the common good and is a form of theft. Excessive taxation that is ineffective at performing it's stated goal and is oppressive.

 

[So ILL]

I hope everybody starts doing this, maybe then people will smarten up about the system and learn that its about money and not humanity, and that's regardless of your color. Maybe people will start getting buck and stop pointing the finger at each other on the bottom and go at the ones up top that are playing everybody. If you're not in the top 1%, you're losing right now.

 

[desertrain10]

Wage increase should come with profitability not productivity. A CEO makes more because their job when done correctly is more profitable to the enterprise

ceo's still make millions when companies are failing

they should not but they still do deserve to make much more than the average worker because they set the whole agenda and carry it out

How much more?

It depends on the individual company and industry. why should i pay a minimum wage worker 15 an hour if doing so will lessen the profitability of my enterprise???? and make it less competitive with the other companies in my industry??

Less competitive? Nigga...

In the second experiment, Ariely and Norton asked participants to guess how wealth was distributed in the United States, and then to write how it would be divvied up in an ideal world (this, it seems, served as the template for Norton’s most recent study). Americans had little idea how concentrated wealth truly was. Subjects estimated that the top 20 percent of U.S. households owned about 59 percent of the country’s net worth, whereas in the real world, they owned about 84 percent of it. In their own private utopia, subjects said that the top quintile would claim just 32 percent of the wealth.

“People drastically underestimate the current disparities in wealth and income in their societies,” Norton told me in an email, “and their ideals are more equal than their estimates, which are already more equal than the actual levels. Maybe most importantly, people from all walks of life—Democrats and Republicans, rich and poor, all over the world—have a large degree of consensus in their ideals: Everyone’s ideals are more equal than the way they think things are.” Theoretically, Americans aren’t exceptional in their views about distribution at all—they have a sense of fairness similar to that of Germans, French, and Australians, and most Americans would be offended if they actually knew the degree of economic inequality that exists in this country.
http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...nequality_is_new_harvard_business_school.html

So this next excerpt from that same article summates it all...

In the 1960s, the typical corporate chieftain in the U.S. earned 20 times as much as the average employee. Today, depending on whose estimate you choose, he makes anywhere from 272 to 354 times as much. According to the AFL-CIO, the average CEO takes home more than $12 million, while the average worker makes about $34,000.

So basically Americans THINK the ratio of CEO to employee pay is about 30:1.

Ask them what the ratio would be in their utopia and they say about 7:1.

The shit is really anywhere from 272-354:1.

But you bitching about $15 an hour.

i think your missing the point.....raising someones wages who is at the "bottom" of the totem pole will make everything else up eventually...because no one wants to be out done if they are at the same level and no one is going to take a pay cut

No, you're the one missing the point. Like badly missing the point.

I already addressed and shut down that mindset clear as day on the previous page. Swallow your insecurities because no one at the same level should be taking pay cuts. You're vastly misunderstanding who it is that should be taking pay cuts... and not all of them would even be paycuts since most profits end up being bonuses on top of salaries already earned.

You're mad at the idea of a person doing just as much work as you (just a different type of work) for earning the same pay. But you're not upset that one person at the top of the ladder takes the extra earnings off of your labor and gives himself 300 times more than what you make. FOH.

the people i am talking about who wont be taking paycuts are the people are the top of the ladder.

damn you hurling insults without properly trying to get a clear understand of what could be taken as miscommunication

Not saying "you" directly, bro. I'm using it in place of those that share that mindset b/c those people do exist. The issue of people at the top not being willing to take pay cuts is where the reforms come into place. Tax those above a certain monetary threshold, raise the minimum wage, create trade taxes that dissuade businesses from outsourcing jobs. There's a multitude of things that can be done.

I personally believe it would have to be eased into but first and foremost we have to kill this belief amongst Americans that this is how it has always worked. The masses have become complacent with being the underclass to the point where you have people earning $80,000 annually sticking their noses up; not knowing they're being underpaid too.

It;s a private fucking enterprise why the fuck do you feel you have the right to tell people how much a ceo should be paid. If reforms needs to take place it will happen within the corporation. like i told @Stiff in the other thread if you are going to tax me at stupid levels i am going to leave there is something called corporate inversion.

If you don't pay ur employees a decent wage, less ppl there will be to buy ur products and more ppl left looking to the government for assistance ...and the government is going to respond by raising taxes ...so wouldn't that benefit corporations to increase wages????

It kills me ...corporations wouldn't be able to accumulate the same wealth without big government... yet they still don't want to pull their weight... Crazy to say the least

 

[Stiff]

Wage increase should come with profitability not productivity. A CEO makes more because their job when done correctly is more profitable to the enterprise

ceo's still make millions when companies are failing

they should not but they still do deserve to make much more than the average worker because they set the whole agenda and carry it out

How much more?

It depends on the individual company and industry. why should i pay a minimum wage worker 15 an hour if doing so will lessen the profitability of my enterprise???? and make it less competitive with the other companies in my industry??

And this is the inherent flaw of capitalism...it is completely focused on the individual....and in this case "corporation are people". Wendy's has all incentive to do what's best for Wendy's to maximize profits as much as possible even if it is at the expense of society as a whole.

If corporations are people, then they are the most sociopathic and apathetic people to have ever lived.

why should these corporations care???? when a government does it's job people can benefit from corporate selfishness

what's the government's job? Taxing?

didn't you just say if you're taxed as a businessman you're going to find a way to leave?

No i said if i was taxed to a stupid level i would leave, do you understand??? businesses will leave, all those who can afford to leave will leave. ironically you people want to tax big corporations but all you are going to do is end up picking on smaller corporations.Those THAT do not have the resources to leave.

One of the jobs of government is to tax to provide public services that are for the common good but stupid taxes hurt the common good and is a form of theft. Excessive taxation that is ineffective at performing is stated goal is oppressive.

You keep saying "leave" ...they're not going anywhere. They're going to take all steps and jump through all hoops so that they don't have to pay taxes..but their products are going to still be here..

If the people wanted to they could make it where if you want American dollars then you have to play ball with the American people. If your company was founded by an American citizen and you try to say "oh well our headquarters is in Bermuda now so we're not paying those taxes" then they could make it where you're going to pay anyway..all kinds of intricate tax codes that could be introduced to target them. Now if they TRULY want to leave then they can take their products with them and not sell on American soil. How many of them are willing to do that?

you act like there's not ways to deal with these mfers

 

[zzombie]

Wage increase should come with profitability not productivity. A CEO makes more because their job when done correctly is more profitable to the enterprise

ceo's still make millions when companies are failing

they should not but they still do deserve to make much more than the average worker because they set the whole agenda and carry it out

How much more?

It depends on the individual company and industry. why should i pay a minimum wage worker 15 an hour if doing so will lessen the profitability of my enterprise???? and make it less competitive with the other companies in my industry??

Less competitive? Nigga...

In the second experiment, Ariely and Norton asked participants to guess how wealth was distributed in the United States, and then to write how it would be divvied up in an ideal world (this, it seems, served as the template for Norton’s most recent study). Americans had little idea how concentrated wealth truly was. Subjects estimated that the top 20 percent of U.S. households owned about 59 percent of the country’s net worth, whereas in the real world, they owned about 84 percent of it. In their own private utopia, subjects said that the top quintile would claim just 32 percent of the wealth.

“People drastically underestimate the current disparities in wealth and income in their societies,” Norton told me in an email, “and their ideals are more equal than their estimates, which are already more equal than the actual levels. Maybe most importantly, people from all walks of life—Democrats and Republicans, rich and poor, all over the world—have a large degree of consensus in their ideals: Everyone’s ideals are more equal than the way they think things are.” Theoretically, Americans aren’t exceptional in their views about distribution at all—they have a sense of fairness similar to that of Germans, French, and Australians, and most Americans would be offended if they actually knew the degree of economic inequality that exists in this country.
http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...nequality_is_new_harvard_business_school.html

So this next excerpt from that same article summates it all...

In the 1960s, the typical corporate chieftain in the U.S. earned 20 times as much as the average employee. Today, depending on whose estimate you choose, he makes anywhere from 272 to 354 times as much. According to the AFL-CIO, the average CEO takes home more than $12 million, while the average worker makes about $34,000.

So basically Americans THINK the ratio of CEO to employee pay is about 30:1.

Ask them what the ratio would be in their utopia and they say about 7:1.

The shit is really anywhere from 272-354:1.

But you bitching about $15 an hour.

i think your missing the point.....raising someones wages who is at the "bottom" of the totem pole will make everything else up eventually...because no one wants to be out done if they are at the same level and no one is going to take a pay cut

No, you're the one missing the point. Like badly missing the point.

I already addressed and shut down that mindset clear as day on the previous page. Swallow your insecurities because no one at the same level should be taking pay cuts. You're vastly misunderstanding who it is that should be taking pay cuts... and not all of them would even be paycuts since most profits end up being bonuses on top of salaries already earned.

You're mad at the idea of a person doing just as much work as you (just a different type of work) for earning the same pay. But you're not upset that one person at the top of the ladder takes the extra earnings off of your labor and gives himself 300 times more than what you make. FOH.

the people i am talking about who wont be taking paycuts are the people are the top of the ladder.

damn you hurling insults without properly trying to get a clear understand of what could be taken as miscommunication

Not saying "you" directly, bro. I'm using it in place of those that share that mindset b/c those people do exist. The issue of people at the top not being willing to take pay cuts is where the reforms come into place. Tax those above a certain monetary threshold, raise the minimum wage, create trade taxes that dissuade businesses from outsourcing jobs. There's a multitude of things that can be done.

I personally believe it would have to be eased into but first and foremost we have to kill this belief amongst Americans that this is how it has always worked. The masses have become complacent with being the underclass to the point where you have people earning $80,000 annually sticking their noses up; not knowing they're being underpaid too.

It;s a private fucking enterprise why the fuck do you feel you have the right to tell people how much a ceo should be paid. If reforms needs to take place it will happen within the corporation. like i told @Stiff in the other thread if you are going to tax me at stupid levels i am going to leave there is something called corporate inversion.

If you don't pay ur employees a decent wage, less ppl there will be to buy ur products and more ppl left looking to the government for assistance ...and the government is going to respond by raising taxes ...so wouldn't that benefit corporations to increase wages????

It kills me ...corporations wouldn't be able to accumulate the same wealth without big government... yet they still don't want to pull their weight... Crazy to say the least

Yes employees should be paid a decent wage but who decides what a decent wage is??? the market and i am not talking stock market and stop being silly not every corporation has it's hand out to the government

 

[desertrain10]

Wage increase should come with profitability not productivity. A CEO makes more because their job when done correctly is more profitable to the enterprise

ceo's still make millions when companies are failing

they should not but they still do deserve to make much more than the average worker because they set the whole agenda and carry it out

How much more?

It depends on the individual company and industry. why should i pay a minimum wage worker 15 an hour if doing so will lessen the profitability of my enterprise???? and make it less competitive with the other companies in my industry??

Less competitive? Nigga...

In the second experiment, Ariely and Norton asked participants to guess how wealth was distributed in the United States, and then to write how it would be divvied up in an ideal world (this, it seems, served as the template for Norton’s most recent study). Americans had little idea how concentrated wealth truly was. Subjects estimated that the top 20 percent of U.S. households owned about 59 percent of the country’s net worth, whereas in the real world, they owned about 84 percent of it. In their own private utopia, subjects said that the top quintile would claim just 32 percent of the wealth.

“People drastically underestimate the current disparities in wealth and income in their societies,” Norton told me in an email, “and their ideals are more equal than their estimates, which are already more equal than the actual levels. Maybe most importantly, people from all walks of life—Democrats and Republicans, rich and poor, all over the world—have a large degree of consensus in their ideals: Everyone’s ideals are more equal than the way they think things are.” Theoretically, Americans aren’t exceptional in their views about distribution at all—they have a sense of fairness similar to that of Germans, French, and Australians, and most Americans would be offended if they actually knew the degree of economic inequality that exists in this country.
http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...nequality_is_new_harvard_business_school.html

So this next excerpt from that same article summates it all...

In the 1960s, the typical corporate chieftain in the U.S. earned 20 times as much as the average employee. Today, depending on whose estimate you choose, he makes anywhere from 272 to 354 times as much. According to the AFL-CIO, the average CEO takes home more than $12 million, while the average worker makes about $34,000.

So basically Americans THINK the ratio of CEO to employee pay is about 30:1.

Ask them what the ratio would be in their utopia and they say about 7:1.

The shit is really anywhere from 272-354:1.

But you bitching about $15 an hour.

i think your missing the point.....raising someones wages who is at the "bottom" of the totem pole will make everything else up eventually...because no one wants to be out done if they are at the same level and no one is going to take a pay cut

No, you're the one missing the point. Like badly missing the point.

I already addressed and shut down that mindset clear as day on the previous page. Swallow your insecurities because no one at the same level should be taking pay cuts. You're vastly misunderstanding who it is that should be taking pay cuts... and not all of them would even be paycuts since most profits end up being bonuses on top of salaries already earned.

You're mad at the idea of a person doing just as much work as you (just a different type of work) for earning the same pay. But you're not upset that one person at the top of the ladder takes the extra earnings off of your labor and gives himself 300 times more than what you make. FOH.

the people i am talking about who wont be taking paycuts are the people are the top of the ladder.

damn you hurling insults without properly trying to get a clear understand of what could be taken as miscommunication

Not saying "you" directly, bro. I'm using it in place of those that share that mindset b/c those people do exist. The issue of people at the top not being willing to take pay cuts is where the reforms come into place. Tax those above a certain monetary threshold, raise the minimum wage, create trade taxes that dissuade businesses from outsourcing jobs. There's a multitude of things that can be done.

I personally believe it would have to be eased into but first and foremost we have to kill this belief amongst Americans that this is how it has always worked. The masses have become complacent with being the underclass to the point where you have people earning $80,000 annually sticking their noses up; not knowing they're being underpaid too.

It;s a private fucking enterprise why the fuck do you feel you have the right to tell people how much a ceo should be paid. If reforms needs to take place it will happen within the corporation. like i told @Stiff in the other thread if you are going to tax me at stupid levels i am going to leave there is something called corporate inversion.

If you don't pay ur employees a decent wage, less ppl there will be to buy ur products and more ppl left looking to the government for assistance ...and the government is going to respond by raising taxes ...so wouldn't that benefit corporations to increase wages????

It kills me ...corporations wouldn't be able to accumulate the same wealth without big government... yet they still don't want to pull their weight... Crazy to say the least

Yes employees should be paid a decent wage but who decides what a decent wage is??? the market and i am not talking stock market and stop being silly not every corporation has it's hand out to the government

If a person working full-time cannot afford to pay for their basic living expenses without government assistance its a problem for us all

And ur the one being silly

Corporations like Nike and Wendy's would not be the size and worth they are today without big government

 

[MarcusGarvey]

Wage increase should come with profitability not productivity. A CEO makes more because their job when done correctly is more profitable to the enterprise

Unions of public companies should be using dues to buy up shares of the company, they'd be able to share in the buybacks, dividends, and takeovers.

It's not only unskilled workers, "middle" income people are often one accident, illness, or pay check away from falling on their face.

Fun times ahead - lots of states with unfunded pension liabilities, the US govt still needs to make drastic cuts to Medicare/Medicaid, and the military budget. Companies are holding wages tight. Low interest rate, destined to cause a bubble somewhere. What a brotha to do? Find a way to invest in your self/business/side hustle

 

[zzombie]

Wage increase should come with profitability not productivity. A CEO makes more because their job when done correctly is more profitable to the enterprise

ceo's still make millions when companies are failing

they should not but they still do deserve to make much more than the average worker because they set the whole agenda and carry it out

How much more?

It depends on the individual company and industry. why should i pay a minimum wage worker 15 an hour if doing so will lessen the profitability of my enterprise???? and make it less competitive with the other companies in my industry??

And this is the inherent flaw of capitalism...it is completely focused on the individual....and in this case "corporation are people". Wendy's has all incentive to do what's best for Wendy's to maximize profits as much as possible even if it is at the expense of society as a whole.

If corporations are people, then they are the most sociopathic and apathetic people to have ever lived.

why should these corporations care???? when a government does it's job people can benefit from corporate selfishness

what's the government's job? Taxing?

didn't you just say if you're taxed as a businessman you're going to find a way to leave?

No i said if i was taxed to a stupid level i would leave, do you understand??? businesses will leave, all those who can afford to leave will leave. ironically you people want to tax big corporations but all you are going to do is end up picking on smaller corporations.Those THAT do not have the resources to leave.

One of the jobs of government is to tax to provide public services that are for the common good but stupid taxes hurt the common good and is a form of theft. Excessive taxation that is ineffective at performing is stated goal is oppressive.

You keep saying "leave" ...they're not going anywhere. They're going to take all steps and jump through all hoops so that they don't have to pay taxes..but their products are going to still be here..

If the people wanted to they could make it where if you want American dollars then you have to play ball with the American people. If your company was founded by an American citizen and you try to say "oh well our headquarters is in Bermuda now so we're not paying those taxes" then they could make it where you're going to pay anyway..all kinds of intricate tax codes that could be introduced to target them. Now if they TRULY want to leave then they can take their products with them and not sell on American soil. How many of them are willing to do that?

you act like there's not ways to deal with these mfers

They are leavinghttp://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-companies-abandoning-the-u-s-to-dodge-taxes/

american corporations already pay taxes to america and to foreign nations when these corporations move to other nations america cannot treat them differently than any other foreign company just because an american citizen started them or owns them. First of all these huge CORPORATIONS are owned by hundreds of people who own shares are you going to penalize these people, are you going to take their wealth away.

TO DO SO would basically be protectionist and THE response from foreign nations would be to do the same which would mean american products become to expensive to sell which means our products would also be shut out of outside markets.

there are ways to do what you want but in economics everything has a backlash, what what you suggested would crash our economy. burger king technically is now canadian??? so what will you do close down burger kings and send hundreds of people into unemployment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_inversion

 

[aneed123]

Unions used to handle a lot of this shit. Times changed. Like dude said earlier Reagan phased out the middle class. Everyone isn't made for college but all the decent jobs those folk could obtain in the past and have a decent life are gone. Now we finna have a over saturated college job market. Everyone aint gonna be able to get that good job. Add in the average Joe is one missed paycheck from poverty anyway. So acting like a fast food employee is a peasant not worthy of 15$ per hour is foolish. Cost of living done tripled.

 

[ChillaDaGawd]

I haven't eaten fast food in 3 years

 

[zzombie]

Unions used to handle a lot of this shit. Times changed. Like dude said earlier Reagan phased out the middle class. Everyone isn't made for college but all the decent jobs those folk could obtain in the past and have a decent life are gone. Now we finna have a over saturated college job market. Everyone aint gonna be able to get that good job. Add in the average Joe is one missed paycheck from poverty anyway. So acting like a fast food employee is a peasant not worthy of 15$ per hour is foolish. Cost of living done tripled.

Sorry they are not worth 15 dollars an hour and no one has yet given me a good justification for paying them so much especially now that we have this new technology.

Everyone cannot go to college but there are other skills they can learn.