• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Union Demands send Firm and jobs packing from California

Nor have they ever. American consumers continue rewarding companies that cut costs. American consumers don't want more expensive alternatives. They want less expensive alternatives. The rest is history. We'd have had to close our doors, close off trade, go protectionist, to avoid that. It is very difficult to argue we'd have higher living standards if we had done that.
While there was never parity between workers and corporate, the graphics I've included in this thread show that the disparity is growing. Significantly.

If people want lower costs, cut CEO pay. It's up ~700% over the last few decades according to the graphic I included while worker pay is only up 5%.
I'm not defending those other things (they're for another discussion), and nor does this observation justify the tactics of labor cartels.
You're attacking unions for doing the same thing as every other business in America.
 
B) The wages paid allowed them to make this helpful graphic, which shows that even if they're earning 10 times my income, that's significantly smaller than the disparity of CEOs.

CEO_worker_pay_ratio.png

For one thing, having the title of "CEO" does not result in pay disparities like that. The dramatic pay disparities are found only at the largest corporations. And among those, the primary reason there can even be that sort of disparity is because of equity forms of compensation. Ordinary employees are typically not compensated in equity and, if they were, all we'd hear about were the ones that closed, because when they close, workers not only lose their jobs, but their stock in the company is worthless. So that's unacceptable, but it becomes evident that people essentially wish for the upside potential of equity but don't want to accept the risk involved.

Equity compensation is an interesting way to examine compensation in large corporations, but the largest corporations and executive salaries are the extremes, which make for poor examples on which to base labor policy.
 
For one thing, having the title of "CEO" does not result in pay disparities like that. The dramatic pay disparities are found only at the largest corporations. And among those, the primary reason there can even be that sort of disparity is because of equity forms of compensation. Ordinary employees are typically not compensated in equity and, if they were, all we'd hear about were the ones that closed, because when they close, workers not only lose their jobs, but their stock in the company is worthless. So that's unacceptable, but it becomes evident that people essentially wish for the upside potential of equity but don't want to accept the risk involved.

Equity compensation is an interesting way to examine compensation in large corporations, but the largest corporations and executive salaries are the extremes, which make for poor examples on which to base labor policy.
But you're happy to bash the "extreme" salaries on the extreme end of union leader compensation?

Further, the fact that these CEO's are paid in stocks is largely for tax reasons.
 
Great, glad to hear that the company is indeed staying and providing jobs for Californians, the state needs to stop the bleeding of jobs from that state. Good for them.

If the Japanese don't want to abide by our constitutional rights, then to hell with'em. Or should we just give up our rights in order to get some blood money.
 
A) I believe that wage disparity should be addressed for everyone, including union leaders.

B) The wages paid allowed them to make this helpful graphic, which shows that even if they're earning 10 times my income, that's significantly smaller than the disparity of CEOs.

CEO_worker_pay_ratio.png

The point is your wages as joe shmo worker represent in relative terms what you make the company based on the value of your work output. The value of a CEO's is worth a hell of a lot more. They make or break companies. Joe shmo. Not so much.

The AFL CIO president RICHARD TRUMKA makes $298,542, The VP makes $368,652. The average wage of an AFL CIO union staff is $77,000. The average member of that union makes $17 an hour. That's $34,000 a year. It seems to me maybe the union members ought work for the union. They make more than them.

I take it you believe everyone should be paid equally regardless of output?
 
The point is your wages as joe shmo worker represent in relative terms what you make the company based on the value of your work output. The value of a CEO's is worth a hell of a lot more. They make or break companies. Joe shmo. Not so much.
What the market decides isn't particularly valid. It's just what the market decides.

By your logic McDonald's makes the best burger since it greatly outsells its competitors. Beanie Babies and baseball cards were once heavily valued. I'm hoping that the CEO compensation bubble goes the same way soon.
The AFL CIO president RICHARD TRUMKA makes $298,542, The VP makes $368,652. The average wage of an AFL CIO union staff is $77,000. The average member of that union makes $17 an hour. That's $34,000 a year. It seems to me maybe the union members ought work for the union. They make more than them.

I take it you believe everyone should be paid equally regardless of output?
Using your ratio, that's a 10:1 ratio as opposed to a 350:1 ratio as CEOs are earning. Neither are desirable but clearly one is far, far more extreme than the other.

I don't believe everyone should be earning the same income, but I am very much against the current disparity we're currently experiencing. The worst part is that it's those of us in the 99% fighting with each other rather than addressing where the money actually is and who controls it.
 
While there was never parity between workers and corporate, the graphics I've included in this thread show that the disparity is growing. Significantly.

If people want lower costs, cut CEO pay. It's up ~700% over the last few decades according to the graphic I included while worker pay is only up 5%.

For one, CEOs are not necessarily paid that much. Two, the ones that are are not that significant in number. Three, equity compensation doesn't affect operating costs the same way wages and benefits do. Four, the people who would decide to cut CEO pay are the owners, and they would only do so if the success of the business depended on it (meaning consumers would have to demand goods and services based upon that).

You're attacking unions for doing the same thing as every other business in America.

Not every business in America does what unions do, in fact I would contend there are few that do. Businesses compete with one another. Those that rig the system by installing politicians that will cater to their corrupt tactics are indefensible.
 
You're displaying a fundamental misunderstanding here. Union management is paid for by the members of the unions. That cost is not directly paid for by the company. It costs those of us with stocks nothing. As stockholders, CEO pay costs us infinitely more than union leader pay.

Missed nothing, know that, union members pay for those huge union salaries and all union wages are an increase in cost to the company. What exactly do the union employees get from that union management for their dues and any increased costs to business are deducted from the dividends paid to your parents. CEO salaries are authorized by shareholders so tell your parents to stop authorizing higher pay.
 
What the market decides isn't particularly valid. It's just what the market decides.

By your logic McDonald's makes the best burger since it greatly outsells its competitors. Beanie Babies and baseball cards were once heavily valued. I'm hoping that the CEO compensation bubble goes the same way soon.

If executive compensation was so out of hand that it was bad for the company, the ones that compensated their executives that outrageously would suffer. Let them. If it's a bad business strategy, let them reap what they sow.

I don't believe everyone should be earning the same income, but I am very much against the current disparity we're currently experiencing. The worst part is that it's those of us in the 99% fighting with each other rather than addressing where the money actually is and who controls it.

It would be one thing if you were focusing in on financial markets and investment banks and their dealings with the federal government. But to generalize your opinion onto all companies and their leaders is careless and lazy. If you are not a shareholder in a corporation, do not work for it, and do not spend a particular amount of your money purchasing its products/services, then your opinion about what the company decides to buy or sell from whom and at what price holds no influence.

Unless you can clearly cite illegal behavior or the failure of government to enforce laws against fraud and related crimes, then businesses that choose a successful business strategy will succeed and those that choose a flawed business strategy will not. If its personnel policies are bad, people won't work there. If their products are bad, people won't buy them. If they engage in activities consumers despise, they won't or shouldn't buy from the company.
 
For one, CEOs are not necessarily paid that much.
The numbers listed are an average of pay. That would imply that some are paid more and some are paid less. That's how averages work.
Two, the ones that are are not that significant in number.
They're significant enough to take many millions of dollars out of the pockets of average Americans.
Three, equity compensation doesn't affect operating costs the same way wages and benefits do.
Please expand on this, because your statement is entirely counter intuitive.
Four, the people who would decide to cut CEO pay are the owners, and they would only do so if the success of the business depended on it (meaning consumers would have to demand goods and services based upon that).
Everyone does better or worse depending on how the business does. Workers are laid off if the business does poorly. Workers get overtime if the business does well. Why should one minority portion of the company be given a significant wealth advantage if all contribute to the success and all suffer from the failure of the company?
Not every business in America does what unions do, in fact I would contend there are few that do. Businesses compete with one another. Those that rig the system by installing politicians that will cater to their corrupt tactics are indefensible.
Every business in America trademarks their name if nothing else as a means of preventing competition, for one.
Missed nothing, know that, union members pay for those huge union salaries and all union wages are an increase in cost to the company. What exactly do the union employees get from that union management for their dues and any increased costs to business are deducted from the dividends paid to your parents. CEO salaries are authorized by shareholders so tell your parents to stop authorizing higher pay.
I'm going to ask you to reread your post again, this time with a higher grasp of irony.
If executive compensation was so out of hand that it was bad for the company, the ones that compensated their executives that outrageously would suffer. Let them. If it's a bad business strategy, let them reap what they sow.
It's bad for the business because it's unsustainable. It's a bubble. It's long overdue to pop and if we (meaning you) as Americans weren't artificially supporting it, it'd decrease.
It would be one thing if you were focusing in on financial markets and investment banks and their dealings with the federal government. But to generalize your opinion onto all companies and their leaders is careless and lazy. If you are not a shareholder in a corporation, do not work for it, and do not spend a particular amount of your money purchasing its products/services, then your opinion about what the company decides to buy or sell from whom and at what price holds no influence.

Unless you can clearly cite illegal behavior or the failure of government to enforce laws against fraud and related crimes, then businesses that choose a successful business strategy will succeed and those that choose a flawed business strategy will not. If its personnel policies are bad, people won't work there. If their products are bad, people won't buy them. If they engage in activities consumers despise, they won't or shouldn't buy from the company.
The actions of corporations impact me. They determine the economic climate, the wages, the workers' rights, the products available, the environmental protections, the lobbying in Washington, the costs I'll pay, etc. etc. etc.

Those all affect all of us. It's unrealistic to suggest that a nation isn't impacted by the actions of major actors within it. We're interconnected, and we rise or sink depending on how we've addressed things as a society. No one is isolated.
 
The numbers listed are an average of pay. That would imply that some are paid more and some are paid less. That's how averages work.

They're significant enough to take many millions of dollars out of the pockets of average Americans.

It isn't taking money out of anyone's pockets. They take it out of their own pockets and hand it over when they purchase something.

Please expand on this, because your statement is entirely counter intuitive.

I don't know what there is to expand upon. Do you know there is a difference between cash compensation and equity compensation?

Everyone does better or worse depending on how the business does. Workers are laid off if the business does poorly. Workers get overtime if the business does well. Why should one minority portion of the company be given a significant wealth advantage if all contribute to the success and all suffer from the failure of the company?

The company buys labor and it decides what it is willing to pay for a certain type of labor. The person selling the labor can sell at that price or not.

Every business in America trademarks their name if nothing else as a means of preventing competition, for one.

Is that preventing competition, or is it preventing fraud? In some cases one, in some cases it's another.

It's bad for the business because it's unsustainable. It's a bubble. It's long overdue to pop and if we (meaning you) as Americans weren't artificially supporting it, it'd decrease.

I'm not doing anything to "artificially support" whatever bubble you're talking about. But if it's bad for business, let those businesses fail. New ones will rise up in their place and have opportunities to do things better. Why are you so worried about saving businesses from their own bad decisions? Let them make their own decisions. They'll live or die by them.

The actions of corporations impact me. They determine the economic climate, the wages, the workers' rights, the products available, the environmental protections, the lobbying in Washington, the costs I'll pay, etc. etc. etc.

Those all affect all of us. It's unrealistic to suggest that a nation isn't impacted by the actions of major actors within it. We're interconnected, and we rise or sink depending on how we've addressed things as a society. No one is isolated.

Ah yes. Everything affects everything, therefore I get to control you. That isn't a trump card. It doesn't work that way. Other people don't get to tell you what you must purchase and at what price, and you don't get to tell them what they must purchase and at what price. We can all be "interconnected" without believing we have a right to make other people's decisions for them.
 
It isn't taking money out of anyone's pockets. They take it out of their own pockets and hand it over when they purchase something.
Then why complain about union wages taking money out of people's pockets?

Are you really not seeing how these are the flip side of the same coin?
I don't know what there is to expand upon. Do you know there is a difference between cash compensation and equity compensation?
I understand the distinction, but both involve compensation. They both cost money, even if the money isn't cash, but equity, seeing as how equity is part of how cash is distributed.
The company buys labor and it decides what it is willing to pay for a certain type of labor. The person selling the labor can sell at that price or not.
So why are union contracts bad? It's the same principle.
Is that preventing competition, or is it preventing fraud? In some cases one, in some cases it's another.
The allegation of fraud is anti-competitive.
I'm not doing anything to "artificially support" whatever bubble you're talking about. But if it's bad for business, let those businesses fail. New ones will rise up in their place and have opportunities to do things better. Why are you so worried about saving businesses from their own bad decisions? Let them make their own decisions. They'll live or die by them.
Again, you're not seeing this big picture. Why is okay to let an overpaid CEO sink a business but it's wrong to let an "overpaid union" sink a business?
Ah yes. Everything affects everything, therefore I get to control you. That isn't a trump card. It doesn't work that way. Other people don't get to tell you what you must purchase and at what price, and you don't get to tell them what they must purchase and at what price. We can all be "interconnected" without believing we have a right to make other people's decisions for them.
We are interconnected and all contribute to the sum, but some contribute more than others based on their access to power.
 
Then why complain about union wages taking money out of people's pockets?

I didn't complain about that. I complain about their anti-competitive agenda and that they function as a cartel. Cartels are not good things for our economy.

I understand the distinction, but both involve compensation. They both cost money, even if the money isn't cash, but equity, seeing as how equity is part of how cash is distributed.

Equity compensation is taking money from the owners if anyone, not the workers. Equity compensation dilutes share value, so the owners are the ones paying for that compensation. Owners being those who have invested their disposable income into that company with the expectation that it will grow and its stock price will appreciate. That's why between the owners and the executives so much of the focus is on stock price. The executive's compensation not only increases when the stock price does, but the owners that are agreeing to devalue their shares to pay for that leadership expect great stock performance to more than offset the cost to them of their share dilution when they pay with equity.

So why are union contracts bad? It's the same principle.

Thanks to pro-union laws, employers cannot so easily walk away from a crap deal at the negotiating table. They are forced to spend a "reasonable amount of time" trying to bargain with these parasitic cartels, then if they don't agree they're dragged through mediation, then if they still don't agree they are dragged through arbitration. No other transaction in our markets is forced to go through such a burdensome pain-in-the-*** process. Imagine if you wanted to buy a new car for $9,000 and the car maker had to sit down with you for such a long period of time and then go to mediation and arbitration all because you think you deserve a price the seller doesn't want to accept.

The allegation of fraud is anti-competitive.

Fraud and other criminal behavior is not the type of "competition" economists advocate for robust economies.

Again, you're not seeing this big picture. Why is okay to let an overpaid CEO sink a business but it's wrong to let an "overpaid union" sink a business?

This question makes no sense. Businesses should be free to make their own business decisions and come up with their own strategies. Unions disagree, and have influenced politics to get pro-union laws passed that allow them to impose their anticompetitive cartel tactics on businesses. Despite all that, the measure has failed in the private sector, as private sector union membership has plummeted. And public sector unions should not even exist, as the public sector is not for profit and the taxpayers and ratepayers that have to fund that excess labor cost are too far removed from the negotiating process to have a fair say.
 
Union defenders are always good for a display of histrionics.

The 90% of working Americans that are not in a union are not slaves.

There wages, no vacation, no sick leave, no pension, no nothing say otherwise.
 
There wages, no vacation, no sick leave, no pension, no nothing say otherwise.

Nonunion workers get those things.

Well, with the exception of defined-benefit pensions, which younger/newer union workers by and large do not get either, but that's because defined benefit pensions are utter financial failures.
 
Nonunion workers get those things.

Well, with the exception of defined-benefit pensions, which younger/newer union workers by and large do not get either, but that's because defined benefit pensions are utter financial failures.

HA HA HA HA HA HHA HA HA HA ...........GOOD ONE!

Tell me, what federal law says that your 401k payments in retirement cant be reduced? (like Pensions have)

Where is the PBGC for your 401k? LMAO!!!!
 
HA HA HA HA HA HHA HA HA HA ...........GOOD ONE!

Tell me, what federal law says that your 401k payments in retirement cant be reduced? (like Pensions have)

Where is the PBGC for your 401k? LMAO!!!!

What do you mean "401(k) payments?"

The fact that defined contribution plans require no PBGC-like entity is one of their greatest strengths. It's inherently flawed and demonstrably failed policy to guarantee a benefit that disregards the value of the underlying plan assets used to pay that benefit. It's an attempt to erase the beneficiary's risk from investments by simply guaranteeing that it will provide a specified return even though that can't actually be guaranteed. And so what happens is the benefit is guaranteed by creating new liabilities and imposing them on non-beneficiaries.
 
Back
Top Bottom