Green New Deal

[seahawk]

It's perhaps also not very good capitalism, as CEO's paid so much may focus solely on this year's earnings without a concern for where their market is going, what investment in people, facilities and equipment are needed that may harm the company in the even near future.

[TDub]

totally separate argument

[DCHawk1]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/22/heres-h ... years.html

That chart says it all.

The thing that has you upset is the accumulation of capital, not excessive wages.

[ousdahl]

When was the last time wages were excessive?

And yeah, like I said, let all the workers have a greater share of the profits.

[Deleted User 89]

totally separate argument

it is

but it is also directly related

[DCHawk1]

When was the last time wages were excessive?

And yeah, like I said, let all the workers have a greater share of the profits.

Aha!

Now we get the heart of the matter. We are, unsurprisingly, always comparing apples and oranges. When we see CEO compensation, we see what they get, not just in salary but in equity stakes as well, thereby exaggerating their compensation. When we see worker pay, though, equity issues are ignored. Almost ALL Starbucks employees, for example, are offered equity in the company. Those numbers do NOT show up in compensation statistics, however. The truth of the matter is that the equity in publicly traded companies made available to employees has increased even considerably over the last three decades. We don't see those numbers very often, however, for a number of reasons:

A. because they contradict the narrative;
B. because many hourly employees are transient workers, meaning they don't stay long enough at one job to be vested in equity stakes;
C. the counting gets complicated.

I agree that employees should have equity stakes in the companies they work for. And more do. We just don't count it the same way we count CEO compensation.

[Deleted User 89]

fact is, the “system” is skewed against those seeking upward mobility

the american dream is unattainable for too many, no matter how hard they are willing to work

a national mandate of $15/hr isn’t the answer, but if nothing else, the subject prompts much needed dialogue

i’d imagine that there isn’t a magic bullet, but rather a number of things that need to be done in order to improve the situation

[ousdahl]

B. so why are those employees so transient?

Think they may stick around if their equity, or their wages, were more worthwhile?

(Btw the average Starbucks employee makes about $10 bucks an hour. The CEO is worth about $2.9 billion.)

[DCHawk1]

B. so why are those employees so transient?

Think they may stick around if their equity, or their wages, were more worthwhile?

(Btw the average Starbucks employee makes about $10 bucks an hour. The CEO is worth about $2.9 billion.)

Again, his "worth" is tied to his equity stake. Employees are transient, in large part because they move on to better jobs. That's the way the world works. You can't pay every barista $25/hr and expect the price of shitty coffee not to go up.

[Deleted User 62]

So, fuck 'em...right?

[TDub]

When was the last time wages were excessive?

And yeah, like I said, let all the workers have a greater share of the profits.

Start yourenown guide shop and share the profits however you see fit

[TDub]

So, fuck 'em...right?

Again. Increasing the minimum wage (the heart of the original argument) does nothing to increase their spending power. Just makes them feel better but does nothing to improve their actual quality of life. Instead it contributes to a future recession.

[Deleted User 62]

Good to know that they couldn't use $100 or so extra bucks a week.
(that could be about 1/4 more money)

I would be pretty stoked about 25% more this year.

[ousdahl]

When was the last time wages were excessive?

And yeah, like I said, let all the workers have a greater share of the profits.

Start yourenown guide shop and share the profits however you see fit

Well then I would be the BOSS, and all them proletariat types below me is fungible!

(Btw I hope they don’t mind running the shop for me while I take another vacation...my second home ain’t gonna occupy itself, y’know)

[Deleted User 62]

When was the last time wages were excessive?

And yeah, like I said, let all the workers have a greater share of the profits.

Start yourenown guide shop and share the profits however you see fit

Well then I would be the BOSS, and all them proletariat types below me is fungible!

(Btw I hope they don’t mind running the shop for me while I take another vacation...my second home ain’t gonna occupy itself, y’know)

Don't forget to spend time on your yacht...SS AYN RAND

[DCHawk1]

So, fuck 'em...right?

What a stoopid and irrelevant response.

[Deleted User 62]

So, fuck 'em...right?

What a stoopid and irrelevant response.

Just playing the field as it lies.

[DCHawk1]

No. you're just venting stoopidly.

In the middle of a rare discussion on this board.

[ousdahl]

B. so why are those employees so transient?

Think they may stick around if their equity, or their wages, were more worthwhile?

(Btw the average Starbucks employee makes about $10 bucks an hour. The CEO is worth about $2.9 billion.)

Again, his "worth" is tied to his equity stake. Employees are transient, in large part because they move on to better jobs. That's the way the world works. You can't pay every barista $25/hr and expect the price of shitty coffee not to go up.

How much equity is the average wage-earning employee usually offered?

And by “better job” you mean they get burned out being treated as disposable at Starbucks so they go try a stint at Dunkin Donuts instead?

And of course the price of coffee would go up, shittiness notwithstanding. But maybe more workers could afford the same shitty coffee they’re slinging if all along they were paid a living wage, with decent equity too!

[ousdahl]

So, fuck 'em...right?

What a stoopid and irrelevant response.

This means SO much coming from you.

Now quick, post a gif of a squirrel!