:lol::lol::lol::lol: This fat cat retiree drives a 1990 F-250 I bought in 2002, the "new" truck I will buy might be a 2007 model. :lol::lol::lol::lol:
Top CEOs leave 99% in the dust
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
:lol::lol::lol::lol: This fat cat retiree drives a 1990 F-250 I bought in 2002, the "new" truck I will buy might be a 2007 model. :lol::lol::lol::lol:
I think a million bucks is a pretty good cap.
If you think about the fact that only 100,000 people on this planet make over $1M, that translates to 0.01% of the population. I can see why that figure is even lower than ours considering some of the less democratic states that are out there.
If we cap that a $1 Million, then the excess capital could go to lower income workers within the same organization. It wouldn't affect the organization's profit margins at all and it might make all those people want to spend more money and... support the economy.
For running a government owned corporation maybe. But you set your sights much too low. The way I look at it is that I would not hire an operator to run a million dollar machine that would be willing to work for $12/hr. So by the same reasoning I would not hire someone to run a multi billion dollar corporation that would be willing to work for a mil./yr. It has to do with ambition or the lack of it.
What would probably be far better is taxing performance bonuses and options at the same rate as employment income.
There are. Lots of long haul too. My normal workday running machines was 10-12 hrs then do maintenance and drive home. I like those $400 days. Until tax time.
I can't entirely agree. Some people who are willing to work for low wages, are actually more dependable and conscientious than people with an over inflated opinion of their self worth! They may just be willing to forego short term gain to get the experience. :smile:
Executive pay for the most part is set by the executives. In other words they vote themselves these monstrous salaries. Shareholders have little influence over this sort of thing as shares in most modern corporations are so widely spread that most shareholders do not bother to attend corporate meetings or even vote by proxy. This leaves corporate control in the hands of CEOs who miss few opportunities to reward themselves handsomely. Unfortunately, there are very few corporate executives who show any concern for the average lower level worker; in fact they generally do everything in their power to make sure that those at the bottom of the corporate ladder are denied any benefits that might cut into corporate profits. There are a few exceptions to this dismal situation both currently and historically, but the problem is that there are too few to make much of a difference.
No
In other words; the statement is absolute fantasy and still wrong.
1 share equals 1 vote. If you're too stupid or lazy not to assign your proxy vote, then you get everything that you deserve.
To put it yet another way: Bullsh*t
... And you know this because of...?
Ohhhhh... MF found yet another uber-clever cartoon, so everything he says MUST be true.
Nah, I just wanted to get a rise out of you.
I can throw in a baby seal of you want.
I commented to you with the same in mind...
I can throw in a baby seal of you want.
Only if it's safe for the camera man... I wouldn't want the person to fall through that thin ice.
You willing to put up 7 figures and take the chance?
Hell, I'll talk to taxslave and we can make a deal... You put up a million, he can buy the equipment and hire on a rookie to operate it... The difference in pay between going rate and minimum wage (what the rookie is being paid to get experience) will go straight to you.
Sound good to you JLM?
To tell you the truth if I put up $1 million for a piece of equipment, I'd be more comfortable operating it myself. :smile: The only I was originally trying to make is the money doesn't NECESSARILY equate with ability or dependability.
I will agree that money doesn't equate with ability, however, you made my point for me... Your preference to NOT allow others to operate that piece of equipment translates into an understanding that there are real dollars invested in that stuff and you aren't willing to just turn over the keys to anyone for fear of it being damaged.
Same thing applies to hiring an inexperienced individual to operate it for the sake of saving a few bucks as opposed to getting someone behind the wheel that has a background in operating it.
I have considered that. We have actually discussed that many times. Thing is though qualified equipment operators are worth around $30/hr. and often add in a production bonus. SO someone willing to work for $25 I would consider training. Anyone that would be willing to work for $12 would be out of their element. I would not train an operator without grade 12 either because it is unlikely they would be able to comprehend the operators manual. Might hire an experienced operator with less education because they have gone through the learning curve breaking someone elses machine.
Somewhat off topic but related to what people are worth.
Over the last several decades educators have pushed the not so smart students into trades, which is not always good especially for mechanics. A friend, who is service manager for a GM dealer got conned into giving a talk to the gr. 12 mechanics class. His words. "If you do not have a B average you will have a difficult time becoming a mechanic. The reason is quite simple. The testing equipment is to complicated that without that IQ range they will never figure out how it all works. Best case would be changing mufflers at Midas or tires at Canadian Tire.
Shareholders have the ultimate control. They can sell their shares. Don't forget that your pension plan is a major shareholder in many of these corporations that you think pay their top people too much. So in effect you are supporting paying these high wages.
Fair enough!
I wouldn't allow Canadian Tire to change my underwear! :lol: