Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
225
Views

Re: YOUNGER GENERATIONS HAVE IT TOUGHER

225 Views
Message 21 of 36

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@Olderscout66 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

 

BTW, I don't agree that there should be a general rule that says all CEOs should make a maximum of 20 times the average salary in the company. Some CEOs are average, some below average, and some excel.


Are you implying there was no difference in CEO performance in the 1960's and 70's? The AVERAGE was 35 times, the range was considerably more variation.

 

No need to set some max multiple of average worker pay for CEOs, just repeal the Reagan Taxscam (may need to add a 90% TMR for incomes over $5M) and the top 10% (the ones who divide the profits) will "self-regulate" so workers again receive a fair share of the profits they produce.

 

How do I know? BECAUSE THEY DID EXACTLY THAT FOR 40+ YEARS.

Human Nature has not changed and if the ones doing the dividing cannot keep everything they give themselves, they'll share with the workers because altho they may hold those workers in low esteme, they HATE the Government, and those are the two places the money can go. No chance they'll pass it to the stock holders - the last 30 years has seen the "distribution" shift so the stockholder ROI is LOWER than it was in the 1970's, and the tRump induced buy-backs have seriously diluted what little power stockholders still had.


I'm not implying anything - just that I don't think salaries are a fixed fraction of the CEO and your comment about the Reagan taxscam has nothing to do with the ratio as well as lost some credibility. I have no problem with a truly exceptional person responsible for a large part of the success of the company making more than the CEO!

 

I'm simply saying the stockholders should have a direct binding say in the top executives salary from the VP up!


Those with VOTING (normally "Class A" stock) DO have voting rights.

 

Problem with your notion is 84% of those voting shares are owned by 10% of stock holders, and only 5% of stockholders are INDIVIDUALS. The vast majority of voting share are owned by CORPORATIONS and are therefore controled by Corporate Oligarchs who have not been known for their civic mindedness. Thanks to Republican legislation, more and more companies are issuing 2 types of "common" stock - some with voting rights, others without.

 

This has EVERYTHING to do with the Reagan taxscam. Before the scam, workers received about 80% of their productivity increases as wage increases and before the LBJ tax cut, it was 96%. After the Reagan Scam, that percentage dropped to 7%.

 

The ONLY way to get back to having workers receive a fair share of profits is to remove the incentive for the ones dividing the profits to keep it all for themselves, which is EXACTLY what they've done since 1980 when the Reaganscam allowed them to keep what they took.

 

You want to return some of the profits to the workers who created them? Stop voting for the Republicans who arranged for the profits to all go to the top 10% by changing the tax code.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
225
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
223
Views

Re: YOUNGER GENERATIONS HAVE IT TOUGHER

223 Views
Message 22 of 36

@Olderscout66 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

 

BTW, I don't agree that there should be a general rule that says all CEOs should make a maximum of 20 times the average salary in the company. Some CEOs are average, some below average, and some excel.


Are you implying there was no difference in CEO performance in the 1960's and 70's? The AVERAGE was 35 times, the range was considerably more variation.

 

No need to set some max multiple of average worker pay for CEOs, just repeal the Reagan Taxscam (may need to add a 90% TMR for incomes over $5M) and the top 10% (the ones who divide the profits) will "self-regulate" so workers again receive a fair share of the profits they produce.

 

How do I know? BECAUSE THEY DID EXACTLY THAT FOR 40+ YEARS.

Human Nature has not changed and if the ones doing the dividing cannot keep everything they give themselves, they'll share with the workers because altho they may hold those workers in low esteme, they HATE the Government, and those are the two places the money can go. No chance they'll pass it to the stock holders - the last 30 years has seen the "distribution" shift so the stockholder ROI is LOWER than it was in the 1970's, and the tRump induced buy-backs have seriously diluted what little power stockholders still had.


I'm not implying anything - just that I don't think salaries are a fixed fraction of the CEO and your comment about the Reagan taxscam has nothing to do with the ratio as well as lost some credibility. I have no problem with a truly exceptional person responsible for a large part of the success of the company making more than the CEO!

 

I'm simply saying the stockholders should have a direct binding say in the top executives salary from the VP up!

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
223
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
220
Views

Re: YOUNGER GENERATIONS HAVE IT TOUGHER

220 Views
Message 23 of 36

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

 

BTW, I don't agree that there should be a general rule that says all CEOs should make a maximum of 20 times the average salary in the company. Some CEOs are average, some below average, and some excel.


Are you implying there was no difference in CEO performance in the 1960's and 70's? The AVERAGE was 35 times, the range was considerably more variation.

 

No need to set some max multiple of average worker pay for CEOs, just repeal the Reagan Taxscam (may need to add a 90% TMR for incomes over $5M) and the top 10% (the ones who divide the profits) will "self-regulate" so workers again receive a fair share of the profits they produce.

 

How do I know? BECAUSE THEY DID EXACTLY THAT FOR 40+ YEARS.

Human Nature has not changed and if the ones doing the dividing cannot keep everything they give themselves, they'll share with the workers because altho they may hold those workers in low esteme, they HATE the Government, and those are the two places the money can go. No chance they'll pass it to the stock holders - the last 30 years has seen the "distribution" shift so the stockholder ROI is LOWER than it was in the 1970's, and the tRump induced buy-backs have seriously diluted what little power stockholders still had.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
220
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
223
Views

Re: YOUNGER GENERATIONS HAVE IT TOUGHER

223 Views
Message 24 of 36

The average savings rate for American workers in 1968 was 10% of gross income.

 

The average savings rate for American workers today is 1-2% of gross income.

 

Can anyone understand the significance of those two FACTS?

 

I and many of my contemporaries took great advantage of the first fact and are "living the dream" in retirement. That "cushion" in every paycheck made risk taking a whole lot easier both in the amount we could "risk" and the knowledge we could recoup our losses in short order if worse came to worst.

 

But for the last 30 years, making the sort of investments us Boomers could handle WHEN WE BEGAN has NOT been an option. Today with the obliteration of fixed retirements and near disappearance of company financed retirements in the "gig economy", our kids may NEVER be able to retire, and for the grandkids no retirement is going to become the rule.

 

The cause is the Republican redistribution of income via the Reagan taxscam which gave all the income gains in the past 30 years to the top 10%, left the next lower 70% barely keeping pace with inflation and sent the bottom 20% into NEGATIVE numbers - instead of building investments for retirement, they go deeper into debt every year, thanks to that Taxscam AND Republicans "making credit available to the lower classes" which is their euphemism for LEGALIZING LOAN SHARKING!

 

I grew up knowing lots of poor kids, but NONE were without a home and most took family vacations and got by on a single income.

 

Is having more billionaires really worth it?

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
223
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
221
Views

Re: YOUNGER GENERATIONS HAVE IT TOUGHER

221 Views
Message 25 of 36

@mandm84 wrote:

Lost in all the Far Right Rhetoric is how much the CEO's Income has climbed from 1970 to 2000. In 1970 the average CEO "only" made 35 times as much as the average worker and the CEO's provided their hardworking Blue Collar with Pensions , Matching 401k's and Lifetime Healthcare.

But by 2000 , the CEO's Income shot up to 400 times as much as the average worker. Why ?

Because they eliminated Pensions , Matching 401k's , Healthcare and Outsourced most of those hardworking employee's jobs Oversea's. 

 

Greed on Steroids and today's Republican's are all for it. Capitalism on Steroids.


I agree that (some) CEOs make too much money but the problem is NOT Republican or even Democrats. It is both parties that have failed their responsibilities to the American public. CEO salaries are set by compensation boards that are members of the board of directors and beholden to the CEO! They also have a question (non binding) that asks if you (the stockholder) agree to that level of compensation and even set goals for each member of the board.  The real issue is the vote is NON BINDING so the shareholders really don't determine the salary of the CEO.

 

If both Republicans and Democrats made a law that said the vote on compensation was binding (for all publicly held stock companies), that would accomplish your (and my goal)!

 

BTW, I don't agree that there should be a general rule that says all CEOs should make a maximum of 20 times the average salary in the company. Some CEOs are average, some below average, and some excel.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
221
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
227
Views

Re: YOUNGER GENERATIONS HAVE IT TOUGHER

227 Views
Message 26 of 36

Sometimes other methods of compensation come into play.

How Stock Options Work In Start Up Companies

 

I know several pretty young folks (40-45) who have worked for companies that offered this type of compensation.  All of these companies have now gone public and they are reaping their financial rewards for taking this risk with the startup.

 

It is all about determing what you can tolerate financially from beginning to end.

Increased risk many times does = greater benefit.  And actually working there should give a bird's eye view since the company is a startup.

 

There are many ways to make money for employees today if they are able to understand various methods of compensation, and other related matters, I.e. Tax implications when the deal is done.


* * * * It's Always Something . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
227
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
237
Views

Re: YOUNGER GENERATIONS HAVE IT TOUGHER

237 Views
Message 27 of 36

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@MaVolta wrote:

@rker321 wrote:

157,00 millernials  have 1 million  or more in their 40K's ?


The simple answer is NO. Read the report for yourself. The 401k millionaires (about 157,000) are not broken out by demographics. The article states that these are people who have been saving for some 30 years in their 401k plans. Hardly possible for it to be millennials who are age 22-37.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2018/05/21/the-number-of-401k-millionaires-hits-a-n...

 

The article goes on to say that this should be a good example for millenials to be saving while they work. It doesn't say that they are. Most of them are not.

 

The median annual household income for millennials is around $69,000 according to the Pew Foundation. They also average around $36,000 in debt, excluding home mortgages. This article explains.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/11/millennials-households-earn-more-money-than-ever-heres-the-problem.h...


Thank you for posting the reality of this.  Quite different than the picture the poster of this topic is trying to paint.


Thank you, this is what I thought. and I was correct. my children who are not millenians have been able to amass more money than their children who happen to be millenarians. my grandchildren encountered a lot of things happening while they were growing up to be able to save that kind of money and  werent able to get had the jobs that their parents had. Is somebody joking? or have we forgotten all the kids that came back to live in their parents home?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
237
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
248
Views

Re: YOUNGER GENERATIONS HAVE IT TOUGHER

248 Views
Message 28 of 36

@MaVolta wrote:

@rker321 wrote:

157,00 millernials  have 1 million  or more in their 40K's ?


The simple answer is NO. Read the report for yourself. The 401k millionaires (about 157,000) are not broken out by demographics. The article states that these are people who have been saving for some 30 years in their 401k plans. Hardly possible for it to be millennials who are age 22-37.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2018/05/21/the-number-of-401k-millionaires-hits-a-n...

 

The article goes on to say that this should be a good example for millenials to be saving while they work. It doesn't say that they are. Most of them are not.

 

The median annual household income for millennials is around $69,000 according to the Pew Foundation. They also average around $36,000 in debt, excluding home mortgages. This article explains.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/11/millennials-households-earn-more-money-than-ever-heres-the-problem.h...


Thank you for posting the reality of this.  Quite different than the picture the poster of this topic is trying to paint.


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
248
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
251
Views

Re: YOUNGER GENERATIONS HAVE IT TOUGHER

251 Views
Message 29 of 36

@rker321 wrote:

157,00 millernials  have 1 million  or more in their 40K's ?


The simple answer is NO. Read the report for yourself. The 401k millionaires (about 157,000) are not broken out by demographics. The article states that these are people who have been saving for some 30 years in their 401k plans. Hardly possible for it to be millennials who are age 22-37.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2018/05/21/the-number-of-401k-millionaires-hits-a-n...

 

The article goes on to say that this should be a good example for millenials to be saving while they work. It doesn't say that they are. Most of them are not.

 

The median annual household income for millennials is around $69,000 according to the Pew Foundation. They also average around $36,000 in debt, excluding home mortgages. This article explains.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/11/millennials-households-earn-more-money-than-ever-heres-the-problem.h...

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
251
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
262
Views

Re: YOUNGER GENERATIONS HAVE IT TOUGHER

262 Views
Message 30 of 36

Lost in all the Far Right Rhetoric is how much the CEO's Income has climbed from 1970 to 2000. In 1970 the average CEO "only" made 35 times as much as the average worker and the CEO's provided their hardworking Blue Collar with Pensions , Matching 401k's and Lifetime Healthcare.

But by 2000 , the CEO's Income shot up to 400 times as much as the average worker. Why ?

Because they eliminated Pensions , Matching 401k's , Healthcare and Outsourced most of those hardworking employee's jobs Oversea's. 

 

Greed on Steroids and today's Republican's are all for it. Capitalism on Steroids.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
262
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

This AARP gamer plays to get back her art and identity after a health scare. Read Regan C.’s story, available now.


gamer Regan C.

Top Authors