Yeah, well...in both cases, probably 90% of their manufacturing capacity is off
shore now. No one is stopping them. Plenty has been said, but nothing can be
"Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things."
Dan Quayle, 11/30/88
I asked this question before on here but no one wanted to touch it. What you
are saying is that Americans should work for $15.00 a day so they can
compete with the chinese. That's what your saying, correct?
That's what they're saying, without wanting to acknowledge it. Of
course, another obvious question is if you think that is reasonable
for the workers, why not for management? Heck, I'd offer to run one
of the major auto companies for what, say, a mere million/year? So you
don't even have to outsource it ;-)
And forgetting 3rd world executive pay, pay for top executives in the
U.S. is way out of line compared to Europe & Japan. Does anyone
really think GM or Ford is better managed than Honda or Toyota?
Executive pay is no more a free market situation than union pay. Is
anyone really worth $100 million or more a year (obviously, most CEOs
never get close to that)? Realistically, any of the direct reports to
a CEO could probably run the company just as well. If the
stockholders offerred the job to the low bidder among that group you'd
see pay nosedive overnight. In most companies, pay scales in
management are set up in bands related to responsibilities. No
different than union seniority. With one big exception is that most
managers will get an additional bonus based on some performance
On 26 Aug 2003 17:49:07 -0700, firstname.lastname@example.org (Tom Bergman)
Be careful with the word "bonus", which implies something above and
When performance based pay was instituted at some companies, the base
pay was _cut_, with the *bonus* added back in, for a zero base.
I treat my *bonus* as part of my pay, and fully expect ALL of it, if I
meet and exceed my goals. Some companies have now tied part of the
*bonus* to overall company performance. Therefore, if another
department tanks, an economy depressing major world event happens, or
some unexpected crazy regulatory ruling is issued , I get paid less.
This is regardless of the fact that my department has nothing
whatsoever to do with the problems.
My take on pay based on unattainable goals is that it's simply another
way to prevent the company from paying me what I expect. As expected,
my pay goes down, the CEO's goes up. This is regardless of the fact
that every indicator that a CEO's pay could be tied to, like overall
performance, stock price, etc... are down!
My new favorite are "retention bonuses" for top executives. They get
millions not to leave. <G>
No, but what I am saying is that some guy who operates a crane at $20
an hour shouldn't be complaining that he's not making $40 an hour.
Let me ask you this, is he happier making $20 an hour, or making
nothing at all when costs cause the employer to take business
Would you be willing to post a draft of he letter you are going to send to
your employer? The one where you explain to him that, for the good of the
company, you no longer expect any raises and would be willing to take pay
No, but they need to realize that they are a PART of the company and
therefore need to be just as concerned about the company's wellbeing
as their own. If the company is losing money and the union workers
are striking because they don't get that 15% raise this year, what is
the company supposed to do?
Yup... go offshore where they can afford to do business. Had the
workers understood that the company wasn't capable of paying them
their 15% raise and simply lived with it (or went to work elsewhere),
the company wouldn't have been forced to leave.
That works only if the company is prepared to open the books to prove that
they can't afford the 15% raise. Not too many companies are prepared to do
that. While the money spigot isn't as big as it used to be, it certainly
hasn't dried up, it's just been redirected to fewer and fewer people as time
Don't know about the US, but up here in Canada, all the big banks have been
posting profits of 40% increase over previous quarters. I can't remember a
time when profits ever went down for them. It's sickening it's so bad. I'm
ok with capitalism, as long as the general level of everybody goes up a
notch when the big guys profit, but it's not even close to working out that
way. The gulf between those that have and those that don't is widening
You're forgetting that (1) public companies DO have open books, at least
to a substantial extent, and (2) businesses don't exist to make money
for employees: the exist to make money for their stockholders. Why
would the stockholders be interested in maximizing employee income? We
don't have indentured servitude in this country anymore. As an
employee, you can always vote with your feet. Besides, unions do
provide employees with a substantial amount of bargaining leverage. I
think Brian's point was that, indeed, in some cases the "money spigot"
HAS dried up, and employees are simply going to have to adapt or they
will go down with the ship. They may go down with the ship anyway, if
the business simply isn't viable any more.
If I work hard, and smart, and make more money this year than last, why
should *your* standard of living automatically rise?
Or: do something else for a living. How hard is this to figure out?
Society doesn't owe people a living doing whatever they feel comfortable
Your tone suggests you think CEOs enjoy sinecures and spend all their
time loafing at the golf course while the peons work themselves to
death. That's delusional. Most CEOs started out as peons and worked
their way up by putting in 100 hour weeks. If they produce, they get
richly rewarded -- and they're worth it. If not, they eventually get
canned. Stockholders want to make money, and that's the ONLY reason
they are stockholders. Why would they continue to pay a CEO who builds
up a record of failure? They aren't interested in employing anybody,
CEO or Clerk, Third Class, who doesn't make money for them.
Uh, go for this: pay someone more; he works harder and better; productivity
goes up; more good can be sold; profits go up. Is that clear enough?
Jeez, you coulda fooled me. I only worked 65 to 80 hour weeks when I first
started in business. I really don't know shit about business. Only had my own
You tell me why stockholders continue to pay CEOs who don't perform. There are
literally dozens of examples annually. What theya re "interested in" and what
actually happens are 2 different things.
"Old age is fifteen years older than I am."
Oliver Wendell Holmes
It's off-target. Stockholders want to maximize their own profits, not
employee pay. Paying production employees more may be perceived not to
yield enough additional revenue from "harder and better work" by the
employees to be worth the expense.
How would I know? Because the board and stockholders are more
interested in long-term growth than what happens this quarter? Because
good performance means something different in some years than others?
Because the CEO is a silver-tongued devil and has persuaded the board
that the dog ate his homework? Name a specific case or use your own
I'm sure there are, as you say, "dozens of examples" each year, but it's
absurd to claim this is the norm. How many corporations do you think
exist in the U.S.? Are you really asserting that it's generally true
that companies employ and compensate executives without considering
performance of said executives?
I suspect you're seeing a weird, distorted version of reality because
you've got some inner need to demonize businesspeople.
They do it every year in their annual stock report. Heck, most
companies need to post quarterly earnings reports. It isn't like
these numbers are secret, they're out there for anyone, employees
included, to see. Many large companies even post monthly earning
Not difficult at all.
So long as costs here are offset by the much higher costs of shipping
and maintaining a long-distance business, they'll stay here. When
costs here become too high to rationally maintain business and make a
profit, they'll move.
Simple economics. Most people who have made it through high school
should know this. The problem is that far too many workers act like
the money spigot is never ending, that they can keep getting raises
and demanding more and more benefits, regardless of the economy,
simply because they deserve it. If the company is undergoing hard
economic times, the employees, as part of the company, should do the
same. That's life. Instead, you have unions demanding "I don't care
if you lost $500 million this quarter, we all want raises!"
Money doesn't grow on trees.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.