The General tells 19k folks to hit the road

CEO Pay Up 298%, Average Worker's? 4.3% (1995-2005)

http://consumerist.com/consumer/executive-pay/ceo-pay-up-298-average-workers-43-1995+2005-250838.php

Everyone has been giving wages to the wrong people. Even detroit...

If you want a reason to envy other people you will never run out of examples. No matter how much we legislatively take from some "Average CEO", and no matter how much we legislatively give to some kid for detailing cars.

I would say the answer isn't legislation, it's good sense. If the CEO pay more or less corresponded with the corporate profits line in the chart above, I think few would complain. If the average worker pay also more or less corresponded with it, I think nobody really could complain. But somehow we've thrown good sense out the window and decided CEO pay should be rise at a level 200% above profits. Doesn't sound sustainable to me.

You are responsible for how much you make. You.

I am responsible for how much I make. Me.

I may have had unfair advantages in life. Or maybe from my point of view you did. There's no sorting that part out.

Furthermore, if a company wants So-in-So on their team for some reason, and it takes 10 million a year to get him, then they pay 10 million. If 10 won't do it, and they think he's worth it, try for 12.

Look, I don't fault anyone for taking the money and running. I like money myself. Doesn't buy happiness, but it sure does fend off a lot of things that make me unhappy.

But if a company is willing to pay somebody a sum all out of whack with their profits, I think they're being foolish over the long term.

don't buy their stock?

I just reread my posts. crap I'm a jerk.

Tim Baxter wrote: I like money myself. Doesn't buy happiness,

obvisouly you've never been down admiral wilson blvd in Camden NY after 3pm...

We base CEO salary on the wrong thing. He should get paid a good executive wage, and be given stock options redeemable in 5 years.

If he's a good CEO, he'll make a boatload of money. If he's stupid, he'll maximize short term profits at the expense of long term profits (as most CEO's do now), so in 5 years his options won't be worth the paper they're written on

The CEO has a much greater impact upon the company and how it performs than any 100 or 1,000 people on the line. To get someone who's willing to put up with all the hassles and who is qualified to run a corporation that size requires a humongeous salary. It's a completely different skill set.

I'm not saying the GM guy didn't make too much, I don't know what he had to do, but I am saying the chart isn't the only way to look at it.

As far as not being able to use X machine or do X job because of the Unions reminds me of when my son was on Broadway. In his dressing room was a "dresser" who's job was to watch the talent dress. In theory he was supposed to help them get dressed, in practice he just sat and read whilst drawing down a nice salary. When I stepped in to help my son get dressed one night he got all in my face saying he'd shut the show down if I did. I told him and about a dozen other people there was no way they could stop me from helping my son get dressed (he was about 10 or 11 at the time) and they finally shut up.

This poor guy felt his job was in jeopardy because someone else was helping out. I can understand where he's coming from because this dressing room was the Rockettes dressing room. I wouldn't want to do anything that might make me loose my job of sitting in the Rockettes dressing room watching them dress either. http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/media/img/icons/smilies/icon_cheesygrin.gif

It's not just the General. I got downsized today as well. Fortunately, we saw this coming and planned ahead. Unfortunately, there ain't much in the way of jobs out there.

belteshazzar wrote: I think I disagree with you. Not all of their earnings are taxed at the same rate. 0-8k is taxed at 10%. 8k-32k is taxed at 15% 32k -78k is taxed 25% So the total average isn't as bad as you say. And that's if they're single. If they're married 58k is still the 15% bracket....

b e l t e s h a z z e r, you need to go check up on current tax laws, straight from http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=164272,00.html :

Schedule X — Single

If taxable income is over-- But not over-- The tax is:

$0 $7,825 10% of the amount over $0

$7,825 $31,850 $782.50 plus 15% of the amount over 7,825

$31,850 $77,100 $4,386.25 plus 25% of the amount over 31,850

$77,100 $160,850 $15,698.75 plus 28% of the amount over 77,100

$160,850 $349,700 $39,148.75 plus 33% of the amount over 160,850

$349,700 no limit $101,469.25 plus 35% of the amount over 349,700

The average without the initial lumps added on which are taken the second you step over the line would put you somewhere in the 18% but add the plus's and suddenly da da da daaaaaa you're at 30%...

Bryce, I agree with you wholeheartedly I was playing devil's advocate, I think they're way overpaid and essentially self defeating, not to mention I've never been able to figure out what school of economics any organized labor worker has ever studied at or how they figure what they're doing helps anyone, themselves included!

ProDarwin wrote: They work full time - 40hrs/week. I'd hardly call assembly line work a "career". I know thats what it was for some people, but maybe GM realized that and is moving away from it. McDonalds doesn't expect anyone to flip burgers there for the rest of their life. Consequently, they don't pay as if you are doing so. $14 an hour is good pay to do mindless unskilled labor. I worked in a plant for a while (as an engineer) where the labor was union. It was pretty god damn annoying. I could only touch/use certain machines, and I couldn't encroach on what was a "union job" or I'd basically be taking money from someone. I know of several people that would simply create overtime for themselves by taking forever to get something done. In the beginning I had no idea how much money these people made. After I found out, that job became a bit more frustrating.

The world needs ditch diggers too, why shouldn't the ditch digger be able to feed his family. I get tired from hearing people who think that because someone doesn't have a degree they are inferior to the people who do and shouldn't be allowed to make a living. Anyone here could have had my job and make the money i do, It's not my fault that you didn't do it.

Wreckerboy, we have a few engineering spots open, I don't know if they interest you but it's not a bad place to work and the checks always clear.

Check Here: http://www.mta.info/nyct/hr/engineers.htm

http://as0.mta.info/mnr/html/employment/posting_professional.cfm

http://www.mta.info/bandt/employ/netpost1.htm

http://www.mta.info/nyct/hr/postings/engineer.htm

Most of the report to either 2 Broadway, near Wall St or Madison Ave near 42 st.

Booo Hooo! You've got it so tough.

IIRC at the time you see the CEO's salary going up that was the time that GM was in deep doo doo (once again) and they hired him to turn it around. Now could a line worker have done that? Could 1,000 line workers have done that?

That's the difference in salary ranges.

Now as to non-college worker having a right to feed his family? He may have the desire to feed his family but he hasn't the skill sets nor has he proven his willingness to do what is necessary to improve his/her position. It's not that they should make a living, it's that they have no right to expect to make as good a living as someone who has paid the price.

I could probably write a book on some of this stuff, but I'll share just a bit.

I took the buyout from Ford last year after 11+ years on the line. It's hard work, and you are on your feet all day. It takes it's toll.

I didn't like it, and didn't want to be stuck on the line, and potentially night shift, for the rest of my time.

A lot of the people I worked with had degrees, and were intelligent. On the money side, it's a no-brainer: $70K plus benefits.

I've since seen a bunch of general labor on the $15 and under side of things and have even greater respect for my former coworkers. (Not that some of them were/are useless, but that's anywhere.)

I don't like the UAW but they're not the source of the problem...maybe a contributing factor among many others.

No one was criticizing labor or Ford when they were making big $$$ in the late 90's. We got a $8K bonus one year. Labor costs weren't considered too high then. What gives???? If you can make a happy profit, it doesn't matter so much who get's paid what.

I wouldn't do the work for $15/hr, but I realize many would, esp. with the benefits.

It's kind of a slippery slope when you start talking about what is the right wage for someone, because if you start equalizing worldwide wages, ALL Americans are in for it.

You can go to India now and get a good heart surgery for a FRACTION of what it costs here. (Not trying to start a health care debate). And we already know about the other outsourcing.

The fact is that people who make money spend it, and a community losing that kind of payroll takes it's toll on the community.

-James

Fresh out of high school with no marketable skills other than a family member with some pull... Yeah, I'd say $28/hr is freakin' windfall for that category given the amount of overtime some can achieve, they can easily break into the $80k/yr ("gross" income in case someone mistakenly thinks I mean "net" income). In a down economy in a relatively low cost geographic region, I'd say they're damn near getting a princely sum given the skills necessary to do the job. I've worked in a Union shop when I was younger (yes, I had a family "in") but it was before I graduated from high school and, although I did enjoy the pay, I was so disgusted by the attitude, I was happy to go off to college, where after 5 years there and 3 years of on the job experience I FINALLY started making what I had been making as an unskilled, inexperienced, part time Union worker... If you don't see something wrong with this picture, you clearly aren't seeing the picture.

Raze wrote: b e l t e s h a z z e r, you need to go check up on current tax laws, straight from http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=164272,00.html :

Lol. are you seriously correcting me for rounding up $200~?

Raze wrote: The average without the initial lumps added on which are taken the second you step over the line would put you somewhere in the 18% but add the plus's and suddenly da da da daaaaaa you're at 30%...

Is there a way you can rephrase that? I keep reading it can't figure out what you're saying here. Thanks

belteshazzar wrote:

Raze wrote: b e l t e s h a z z e r, you need to go check up on current tax laws, straight from http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=164272,00.html :

Lol. are you seriously correcting me for rounding up $200~?

Raze wrote: The average without the initial lumps added on which are taken the second you step over the line would put you somewhere in the 18% but add the plus's and suddenly da da da daaaaaa you're at 30%...

Is there a way you can rephrase that? I keep reading it can't figure out what you're saying here. Thanks

I'm not correcting you for rounding, I'm pointing out the gov's site for the correct tax schedule because the one you posted had the percentages taxed in each bracket but not the lump tax applied. You don't simply tax dollars in each bracket based on percentage, it's a lump tax PLUS a percentage, if you do the math you'll see someone GROSSING 58k (sorry ww) will only be NETTING ~40k because the total tax is around 30%...

CEO's shouldn't make 200% more than the average worker. The CEO is essential to operations just as the same 200 line workers that his salary equates to. The math is easy. Could that CEO do the work of 200 supposedly lowly line workers? Could the line workers do the CEO's job? Sounds like they're in this boat together.

Could CEO salaries have something to do with the CEO's hiring each other? It stands to reason that if a guy I compete with is making X dollars then I'll make X dollars at my next gig, all things being equal. If you overpay your peer then you're feeding your own ego as well as padding your own pocket.

Baxter has a point. If CEO salaries go that far beyond the average worker how much of a profit does the company have to make to essentially pay for a giant ego? Too much on the part of the Big 3 automakers. It is not sustainable. At some point greed has to take a back seat to the longevity of the company.

I do find it interesting that a company is losing money. A large American corporation, one of many, is going under. The first thing criticized...the Union. When was the last time automaker CEO's took a pay cut? They ran this ship aground. Since they are responsible for the health of the company, via making strategic decisions, shouldn't they be the first to take a pay cut? Nah, let's hit the little guy first. That way we still make all the decisions and never have to account for any of them.

So far as CEO's paying the price? I belly laughed at that one. The workers pay the price while CEO's get bonuses from companies they drove to bankruptcy.

It's funny! I had no idea so many CEO's were on this board! It's almost as if guys who aren't CEO's are defending them. Which is interesting since defending them earns you guys how much money? It gets you what in goodwill? I'm sure the next time Mr. CEO thinks about laying you off he'll say "Ya know. That guy said I didn't earn ENOUGH money! I'll keep him around.

maybe we're not defending them for our own gain, we're just not blaming someone else for our situation.

Raze wrote:

belteshazzar wrote:

Raze wrote: b e l t e s h a z z e r, you need to go check up on current tax laws, straight from http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=164272,00.html :

Lol. are you seriously correcting me for rounding up $200~?

Raze wrote: The average without the initial lumps added on which are taken the second you step over the line would put you somewhere in the 18% but add the plus's and suddenly da da da daaaaaa you're at 30%...

Is there a way you can rephrase that? I keep reading it can't figure out what you're saying here. Thanks

I'm not correcting you for rounding, I'm pointing out the gov's site for the correct tax schedule because the one you posted had the percentages taxed in each bracket but not the lump tax applied. You don't simply tax dollars in each bracket based on percentage, it's a lump tax PLUS a percentage, if you do the math you'll see someone GROSSING 58k (sorry ww) will only be NETTING ~40k because the total tax is around 30%...

We're getting pretty off topic here but I think it's worth it. Either there's something I don't understand, or there's something YOU don't understand.

I think, you're the one who's confused. But you seem so sure of yourself it made me double check. Try this site, tell me what you think. http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

Bill Ford is "foregoing all compensation until the company is sustaining profitability."

Just sayin'

Yeah, but what about Maullaly (sp) who takes the corporate jet down to his home in Florida every friday night, on top of a gi-huge-agantic salary? Bill Ford's not the CEO

Couldn't we all just agree that greedy CEO's, inept management, and short-sighted/lazy unions have all contributed to problems at the domestics?

No skills equal low pay. Moderate skills equal better pay and so on. It is not about how hard you work, but how smart you work. If you are doing a job that millions of others can do and 10s, if not 100s of thousands want to do, the pay is going to suck unless a union helps to artificially inflate wages. Supply and demand.

Wally wrote:

ProDarwin wrote: They work full time - 40hrs/week. I'd hardly call assembly line work a "career". I know thats what it was for some people, but maybe GM realized that and is moving away from it. McDonalds doesn't expect anyone to flip burgers there for the rest of their life. Consequently, they don't pay as if you are doing so. $14 an hour is good pay to do mindless unskilled labor. I worked in a plant for a while (as an engineer) where the labor was union. It was pretty god damn annoying. I could only touch/use certain machines, and I couldn't encroach on what was a "union job" or I'd basically be taking money from someone. I know of several people that would simply create overtime for themselves by taking forever to get something done. In the beginning I had no idea how much money these people made. After I found out, that job became a bit more frustrating.

The world needs ditch diggers too, why shouldn't the ditch digger be able to feed his family. I get tired from hearing people who think that because someone doesn't have a degree they are inferior to the people who do and shouldn't be allowed to make a living. Anyone here could have had my job and make the money i do, It's not my fault that you didn't do it. Wreckerboy, we have a few engineering spots open, I don't know if they interest you but it's not a bad place to work and the checks always clear. Check Here: http://www.mta.info/nyct/hr/engineers.htm http://as0.mta.info/mnr/html/employment/posting_professional.cfm http://www.mta.info/bandt/employ/netpost1.htm http://www.mta.info/nyct/hr/postings/engineer.htm Most of the report to either 2 Broadway, near Wall St or Madison Ave near 42 st.

A ditch digger should be paid what the market for ditch diggers will bear, be it $10 per hour or $100 per hour. No one has a divine right to anything. We have rights to:

Life: No one has the right to kill you.

Liberty: We have the right to make our own choices and not be subject to the will and wim of another.

Pursuit of happiness: We have the right to follow our dreams and live with the consequences.

Nowhere is it stated that we have a right to a minimum outcome or relative standard of living. France contiunes to try that and they have 25% unemployment. It doesn't matter as they have unlimited welfare benefits. Can't find a job of your liking? Collect from the government and bitch about life all afternoon in a cafe.