"Occupy" Protests

Equality 7-2521 wrote: The Doctor wrote: People are not paid based on the amount of work they do in the private sector either.  I would strongly dispute that a CEO does 475 times more work than a janitor, yet that is what he often makes.  I would say, if that were the case, the janitor should probably make more than the CEO.  And the people who actually produce products (the laborers) should be the highest paid in the company. A Socialists' theory of valuation

Edited by The T - November 29 2011 at 16:38

The T wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: The Doctor wrote: People are not paid based on the amount of work they do in the private sector either.  I would strongly dispute that a CEO does 475 times more work than a janitor, yet that is what he often makes.  I would say, if that were the case, the janitor should probably make more than the CEO.  And the people who actually produce products (the laborers) should be the highest paid in the company. A Socialists' theory of valuation The entire system of valuation is the whole crux of the problem with socialists. There was a great article on Mises the other day regarding that. If I find it I will post the link for TheDoctor to totally ignore it.  Edit: Found one in the same spirit.

It's a complex issue that really deserves a thorough treatment. That's not to insult the article which I haven't read, but my general opinion is that some length is needed to really properly talk about it.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: The T wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: The Doctor wrote: People are not paid based on the amount of work they do in the private sector either.  I would strongly dispute that a CEO does 475 times more work than a janitor, yet that is what he often makes.  I would say, if that were the case, the janitor should probably make more than the CEO.  And the people who actually produce products (the laborers) should be the highest paid in the company. A Socialists' theory of valuation The entire system of valuation is the whole crux of the problem with socialists. There was a great article on Mises the other day regarding that. If I find it I will post the link for TheDoctor to totally ignore it.  Edit: Found one in the same spirit. It's a complex issue that really deserves a thorough treatment. That's not to insult the article which I haven't read, but my general opinion is that some length is needed to really properly talk about it.

True. But a quick primer is better than empty phrases. Marx and his theory of value were an attempt to explain this, but one that was utterly wrong.

The Doctor wrote: The T wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: The T wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: The Doctor wrote: People are not paid based on the amount of work they do in the private sector either.  I would strongly dispute that a CEO does 475 times more work than a janitor, yet that is what he often makes.  I would say, if that were the case, the janitor should probably make more than the CEO.  And the people who actually produce products (the laborers) should be the highest paid in the company. A Socialists' theory of valuation The entire system of valuation is the whole crux of the problem with socialists. There was a great article on Mises the other day regarding that. If I find it I will post the link for TheDoctor to totally ignore it.  Edit: Found one in the same spirit. It's a complex issue that really deserves a thorough treatment. That's not to insult the article which I haven't read, but my general opinion is that some length is needed to really properly talk about it. True. But a quick primer is better than empty phrases. Marx and his theory of value were an attempt to explain this, but one that was utterly wrong. I totally enjoyed thoroughly ignoring that article.

Yeah... I also used to be scared of articles with different views than mine... It's a good defense especially when one feels one's ideas are weak...

The T wrote: The Doctor wrote: The T wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: The T wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: The Doctor wrote: People are not paid based on the amount of work they do in the private sector either.  I would strongly dispute that a CEO does 475 times more work than a janitor, yet that is what he often makes.  I would say, if that were the case, the janitor should probably make more than the CEO.  And the people who actually produce products (the laborers) should be the highest paid in the company. A Socialists' theory of valuation The entire system of valuation is the whole crux of the problem with socialists. There was a great article on Mises the other day regarding that. If I find it I will post the link for TheDoctor to totally ignore it.  Edit: Found one in the same spirit. It's a complex issue that really deserves a thorough treatment. That's not to insult the article which I haven't read, but my general opinion is that some length is needed to really properly talk about it. True. But a quick primer is better than empty phrases. Marx and his theory of value were an attempt to explain this, but one that was utterly wrong. I totally enjoyed thoroughly ignoring that article.  Yeah... I also used to be scared of articles with different views than mine... It's a good defense especially when one feels one's ideas are weak...

to be fair....how much first hand down and dirty experience do you guys have with the corporate world?
If you're blue collar you're not a dummie and from what I've seen with management (sometimes very high up) decision making and mindset, I will throw away your sarcasm and say a toilet a scrubber COULD manage a billion dollar company! Look at actions of recent years (let's say going back to Enron since that's as far back as I can actively remember) those CEOs really seem to a bunch of winners!

Even at low levels...2 of my best friend worked moving coins around and various physical labor for Garda. All day long moving 50 pound bags, using machinery, no AC, stressful conditions, broken equipment. Right outta the late 19th century!
Well, one got promoted to a management position (who they used to mock) and started with "well....it's more mentally straining" as he can do nothing (he's admitted it to me) sitting around in an AC room and being a dick if he wants while the others labor.
Point being, the cliches are true. From all I've encountered and heard, it seems like in the business world you work hard to move on up, so you can work less and less and the higher up, quality seems to diminish.

I have had some good managers who even work and actually manage, as has my mother and father but this seems to be a few out of the bunch.



Edited by JJLehto - November 29 2011 at 17:29

Epignosis wrote: The Doctor wrote: People are not paid based on the amount of work they do in the private sector either.  I would strongly dispute that a CEO does 475 times more work than a janitor, yet that is what he often makes.  I would say, if that were the case, the janitor should probably make more than the CEO.  And the people who actually produce products (the laborers) should be the highest paid in the company. Because anybody who can scrub toilets can manage a billion-dollar company.  It really takes some skill and experience to scrub toilets.  I don't think I could ever manage it, myself.  Too much pressure, travel, and risk-taking. Laborers don't produce on their own.  Someone has to invest in the equipment they use, maintain the plant and the machines, pay for the electricity and water, and deal with disasters.

It's not so much that CEOs get paid more than their employees, it just that the ratio has really gotten obscene in my lifetime.  I work at a small  firm and my boss works really hard.  In fact I wish she didn't work so hard so I could have more to work on.   475 times would be unsustainable. 

Laborers don't produce on their own, but neither do rich people.  My position is that it wouldn't hurt for people at the top of big companies to take a little less so their employees can do better and I know there are companies out there if the leadership has a strong moral compass, they make it so.

Also, it would help if certain people read more rather than just spout fake numbers.

Epignosis wrote: Also, it would help if certain people read more rather than just spout fake numbers.

"The Institute for Policy Studies’ ratios are higher than the Economic Policy Institute’s due to methodological differences."
Now 11 to 1 for a big company would seem not only fair but appropriate considering the range of skills people at the various levels of the company would be utilizing.


Edited by Slartibartfast - November 29 2011 at 17:53

By the way I like Politifact, they seem to be a "just the facts Ma'am" kind of organization.

Let's do the rough math because the ratios are after all a number crunching exercise.   @ $10.00 per hour given a 40 hour work week, that's $16,685.00 vs. $183,543.00.  And I await for the attack of the Zippys on my admittedly oversimplified number crunching exercise.


Edited by Slartibartfast - November 29 2011 at 18:15