An old man's career goes flat, Snackbar moves to open deck

SSB, like many of us, is considered a piece worker. We are paid by the piece, not the hour.

 

Owners should and do get a bigger return than the workers.

Many executives own parts of the companies they work at.

The CEOs of Ford/GM/Chrysler own large portions of their companies and get far bigger returns because they do.

 

How much is enough is very subjective. I will happily concede the point that people should live within their means. I will also go so far as to strike 'happily' and replace it with 'joyfully'. Were you to offer me fresh strawberries with fresh whipped creme I would go even further to replace 'happily' with 'orgasmicly ecstaticly', providing that applies across the income spectrum.

But let's remove an individual worker's spending from the equation for the moment - assume everyone's spending is equivalent. Let's also assume that you an your peers all do the same amount of work. If your boss 'earns' a 5% pay raise, but you get a 1% pay raise - are you going to be happy? What about when your boss's boss gets a 10% raise and you talk to your boss about only getting a 1% raise and your boss says "everyone has a pay range and you're at the top". Why isn't the CEO at the top of his range? Why aren't dividends at the top of their range relative to stock price?

I would posit that if this year you make $148k and your boss makes $90K, but next year you make $149K and your boss makes $126K, you'd be asking some questions. And if the year after you make $152K and your boss makes $150k you'd be downright pissed unless you could be shown exactly how your boss got two years of 40% pay raises while you got 1% raises.

 

I refer you to Adam Smith who [paraphrased] said "profits should be low and labor wages high, legislation in favor of the worker is “always just and equitable,”

In other words, if the capital holder earns X in year one and his labor costs are X, and in the next year net earning are up by 1%, then capital return is X*1.05 and labor returns are X*1.05. It's not capital return of X*1.1 and labor return of X.

I have no problem with executives and board members earning more than workers. It is a reflection of skill and ability. The problem I have is when executives/board members take profit above what they're responsible for while arguing that workers should be grateful for having a job at all.

The previous CEO at my company blew $1.5 BILLION dollars on a venture that was doomed to failure (at least that's the publicly disclosed amount). And that's not considering his decision to haul soda in dry vans for $1.90 a mile year round while guaranteeing freeze protect AND an on time guarantee. The man could have sat on his hands, collected the same paycheck and the company would have netted more. Greater executive pay does not correlate to improved company profits.

 

I tend to worry about myself. What others earn doesn’t matter to me.

 

Where did Adam Smith base his calculations on yearly income?

Sure Adam Smith said legislation should be in favor of the worker but did he say that results of such legislation should be measured a year at a time?

 

Measure it by the hour, by the day, by the week, by the month, by the year, by the decade, the result is the same. Labor is the only true commodity and all else is measured in relation to labor. Profits should be low in relation to labor because in the long term that leads to larger profit - at least according to Adam Smith and 'Classic Capitalism'.