Perhaps the estate tax can be a reward for the teachers or the non-profit employees who don't make much money but have an impact on people just as much as any CEO has. The CEO gets more income and has more toys during their life but when all is said and done the CEO gives back a big chunk when they die to the people so the teachers and the non-profits have more resources to work with.
No one is arguing for communism, but arguing to improve a capitalist system that results in a obscene transfer of wealth from the poor/middle class to the super wealthy. And the gap is only going to grow as processes become less labor intensive.
If you liquidated Bezos's entire net worth and redistributed it evenly amongst Americans, each person would get $300. Distribute it amongst everyone in the world and it's about $15. There's a problem with scale when people get all red-assed over billionaires.
The power and influence that comes with wealth, though, can certainly be a problem. If we want to solve that, it's about decentralizing power and influence so there's little to be bought. Just using the force of the state to rob someone has no impact on the actual problem.
CNBC reported a stat that the top 10% of adults own 85% of the world's wealth. That's a problem.
For example, say a diamond mine may have been purchased by a family (or stolen, who knows) 200 years ago. The people in that town/region may be poor but that diamond mine benefits them very little because of something that happened 200 years ago. You have this great resource in your backyard but some rich family in Europe has 28 houses all over the world because of it. There has to be a limit to how long that mass hoarding of wealth can take place.
It’s a hell of a lot more obscene that the Kardashian’s and Jenner’s are rich as fuck than it is that gates and bezos. They add zero value and have no discernible talents
Perhaps the estate tax can be a reward for the teachers or the non-profit employees who don't make much money but have an impact on people just as much as any CEO has. The CEO gets more income and has more toys during their life but when all is said and done the CEO gives back a big chunk when they die to the people so the teachers and the non-profits have more resources to work with.
No one is arguing for communism, but arguing to improve a capitalist system that results in a obscene transfer of wealth from the poor/middle class to the super wealthy. And the gap is only going to grow as processes become less labor intensive.
I'm not arguing with your point, but the "CEO" issue isn't relegated to corporations. My experience is that a small business owner creates as much disparity between him/herself and the workers as any CEO. The corporate CEO probably gets paid more in stocks/options than a private business owner, but the CEO likely provides higher average salaries and benefits to the staff. This isn't a new problem.
Perhaps the estate tax can be a reward for the teachers or the non-profit employees who don't make much money but have an impact on people just as much as any CEO has. The CEO gets more income and has more toys during their life but when all is said and done the CEO gives back a big chunk when they die to the people so the teachers and the non-profits have more resources to work with.
No one is arguing for communism, but arguing to improve a capitalist system that results in a obscene transfer of wealth from the poor/middle class to the super wealthy. And the gap is only going to grow as processes become less labor intensive.
I'm not arguing with your point, but the "CEO" issue isn't relegated to corporations. My experience is that a small business owner creates as much disparity between him/herself and the workers as any CEO. The corporate CEO probably gets paid more in stocks/options than a private business owner, but the CEO likely provides higher average salaries and benefits to the staff. This isn't a new problem.
For sure. Like I said it is complicated. You don't want to take a successful family business from the next generation who is running it well and then the government runs it into the ground. Jobs exist because of business owners so I'm not arguing against them. At some point though the reward to the business owner is probably more than it should be. Congrats, you had a great idea. That doesn't mean you should be able to buy three small islands in the Carribean. "Oh, you worked 60 hours a week and so you think you should get two towers in Manhattan? Lots of people work hard."
Perhaps the estate tax can be a reward for the teachers or the non-profit employees who don't make much money but have an impact on people just as much as any CEO has. The CEO gets more income and has more toys during their life but when all is said and done the CEO gives back a big chunk when they die to the people so the teachers and the non-profits have more resources to work with.
No one is arguing for communism, but arguing to improve a capitalist system that results in a obscene transfer of wealth from the poor/middle class to the super wealthy. And the gap is only going to grow as processes become less labor intensive.
Yes I understand your point of view. And I agree to an extent. Not sure what % or how I’d like it to be done though.
It also seems like the discussion of non-interference with a potential unionization effort of the Long Island warehouse/distribution center was an issue. It wasn’t all about the HQ but rather all of the ancillary issues, as well as the arrogance exhibited by Amazon executives in that they hired no locals to negotiate in NYC.
Kind of reminds me of being in Seattle in 2013 for Pearl Jam and how the locals had so much swagger because of their super bowl victory, how cocky they all were. Well, we all know what happened the following year ( Malcolm Butler). Guess Bezos and Amazon ought to learn how to “play the game?” Or be petulant like Team Trump Treason. And guess what? LIC will be fine.
Wasn't it Staten Island?
Hired no locals to negotiate?? What is that... greasing palms? Why would they need "consultants"? That's corrupt NY politics.
That’s knowing how to talk like locals, nuance. Staten Island or Long Island, does it matter? Amazon is fiercely anti union. Drivers, teamsters, and warehouse workers. The thing is, they don’t have to be. They could pay $30 an hour to the picker, build and pay for their HQ and not miss a dinner, a yacht, a fifth home, or anything. It’s obscene.
It's not obscene, it's capitalism. Say today I'm a small business owner (~$20K salary because I'm a startup), I do my research on working wages for a warehouse worker, and decide on $15 an hour targeting low end of the wage spectrum for that role (aka pricing the worth of the labour based on the market). A lucrative year goes by, and I commit to a $90K salary. Another, and I'm at $300K (24x my Y1 income). I keep up with cost of living wages for my worker, and I still feel that that I'm looking to hire someone in that role from the low end of the wage spectrum. When and why does my obligation change from being fair relative to the market, to being 'fair relative to my income' (which in itself seems arbitrary)?
This is expecting a lot of ethical behaviour from corporations, in addition to asking CEOs to raise costs without tying that back to an eventual bottom line increase - ignoring fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders to not tank the stock prices. It's the responsibility of the government to form laws to produce fair and equitable for its citizens. It's the responsibility of the corporations to adhere to those laws - not to be their own ethical watchdogs.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
It also seems like the discussion of non-interference with a potential unionization effort of the Long Island warehouse/distribution center was an issue. It wasn’t all about the HQ but rather all of the ancillary issues, as well as the arrogance exhibited by Amazon executives in that they hired no locals to negotiate in NYC.
Kind of reminds me of being in Seattle in 2013 for Pearl Jam and how the locals had so much swagger because of their super bowl victory, how cocky they all were. Well, we all know what happened the following year ( Malcolm Butler). Guess Bezos and Amazon ought to learn how to “play the game?” Or be petulant like Team Trump Treason. And guess what? LIC will be fine.
Wasn't it Staten Island?
Hired no locals to negotiate?? What is that... greasing palms? Why would they need "consultants"? That's corrupt NY politics.
That’s knowing how to talk like locals, nuance. Staten Island or Long Island, does it matter? Amazon is fiercely anti union. Drivers, teamsters, and warehouse workers. The thing is, they don’t have to be. They could pay $30 an hour to the picker, build and pay for their HQ and not miss a dinner, a yacht, a fifth home, or anything. It’s obscene.
It's not obscene, it's capitalism. Say today I'm a small business owner (~$20K salary because I'm a startup), I do my research on working wages for a warehouse worker, and decide on $15 an hour targeting low end of the wage spectrum for that role (aka pricing the worth of the labour based on the market). A lucrative year goes by, and I commit to a $90K salary. Another, and I'm at $300K (24x my Y1 income). I keep up with cost of living wages for my worker, and I still feel that that I'm looking to hire someone in that role from the low end of the wage spectrum. When and why does my obligation change from being fair relative to the market, to being 'fair relative to my income' (which in itself seems arbitrary)?
This is expecting a lot of ethical behaviour from corporations, in addition to asking CEOs to raise costs without tying that back to an eventual bottom line increase - ignoring fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders to not tank the stock prices. It's the responsibility of the government to form laws to produce fair and equitable for its citizens. It's the responsibility of the corporations to adhere to those laws - not to be their own ethical watchdogs.
What is obscene is Amazon and Bezos begging for $3BB in handouts.
I think you mentioned your family having 5 brick and mortar stores, right? Now let’s say your family decides to open a sixth store in an economically depressed part of town but the area needs some infrastructure improvements and you don’t quite have the financing for what it takes. I’d be supportive of your family receiving a similarly ratioed tax incentive/break as Amazon. But once you’ve reached the wealth attainment like amazon and Bezos, you’re on your own.
I’d also like to think as your family income increases, the pay of your employees would increase beyond the rate of inflation, or in the form of healthcare/retirement/education benefits or bonuses. Business schools need to reintroduce ethics and morals into the curriculum. The disparity in pay between workers and owners or ceos is what is obscene.
One example: caterpillar won a six year wage freeze from their union despite $37k in profits per employee. They have 55k employees who average $50k per year. That’s obscene.
It also seems like the discussion of non-interference with a potential unionization effort of the Long Island warehouse/distribution center was an issue. It wasn’t all about the HQ but rather all of the ancillary issues, as well as the arrogance exhibited by Amazon executives in that they hired no locals to negotiate in NYC.
Kind of reminds me of being in Seattle in 2013 for Pearl Jam and how the locals had so much swagger because of their super bowl victory, how cocky they all were. Well, we all know what happened the following year ( Malcolm Butler). Guess Bezos and Amazon ought to learn how to “play the game?” Or be petulant like Team Trump Treason. And guess what? LIC will be fine.
Wasn't it Staten Island?
Hired no locals to negotiate?? What is that... greasing palms? Why would they need "consultants"? That's corrupt NY politics.
That’s knowing how to talk like locals, nuance. Staten Island or Long Island, does it matter? Amazon is fiercely anti union. Drivers, teamsters, and warehouse workers. The thing is, they don’t have to be. They could pay $30 an hour to the picker, build and pay for their HQ and not miss a dinner, a yacht, a fifth home, or anything. It’s obscene.
It's not obscene, it's capitalism. Say today I'm a small business owner (~$20K salary because I'm a startup), I do my research on working wages for a warehouse worker, and decide on $15 an hour targeting low end of the wage spectrum for that role (aka pricing the worth of the labour based on the market). A lucrative year goes by, and I commit to a $90K salary. Another, and I'm at $300K (24x my Y1 income). I keep up with cost of living wages for my worker, and I still feel that that I'm looking to hire someone in that role from the low end of the wage spectrum. When and why does my obligation change from being fair relative to the market, to being 'fair relative to my income' (which in itself seems arbitrary)?
This is expecting a lot of ethical behaviour from corporations, in addition to asking CEOs to raise costs without tying that back to an eventual bottom line increase - ignoring fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders to not tank the stock prices. It's the responsibility of the government to form laws to produce fair and equitable for its citizens. It's the responsibility of the corporations to adhere to those laws - not to be their own ethical watchdogs.
You could just have easily said, "It's not obscene, it's greed". Bono (who is no fan of taxes, full disclosure) sang "What you thought was freedom was just greed". We get that public companies must build value for their shareholders. No one is arguing against that. But perhaps those shareholders have a higher estate tax when they pass away (hence your point on changing laws).
Perhaps the option is that the government does not get it but your favorite non-profit organization or foundation. Perhaps to keep the family business or family farm in the family there is a requirement when a generation passes that the portion of the value that would go to the government is transferred to a foundation so the company does not need to sell its assets to pay the estate tax but the foundation can use dividends to do some good for the community.
Amazon is not 1st company asking for corporate welfare. Canada and the US regularly use tax dollars to subsidize the auto, 2008 ring a bell. I am no fan of corporate welfare, but the 10 billion or so GM got from Canada and Ontario benefited Canada economy to the tune of 108 billion in 10 years (GM's numbers that the Union did not dispute). And GM creates very little new jobs in Canada, as a matter of GM is closing a plant and has already moved another line to Mexico.
Seems like 3b is a small price to pay to secure 25000 jobs that will be in the New York area for decades to come. But politicians never really look at the big pictures. And if a few NY politicians egos are bruised, so what. Amazon's got the jobs. And as far as the unions go, who cares... business will always try to stop unionization. Honda and Toyota have kept the unions out of there Ontario operations. I paid union dues for 25 years, a huge waste of money unless of course, you had one foot out the door because of laziness and stupidity, then the union would spend like drunken sailors to keep those people.
Weekends All Breaks at Work, including your Lunch Breaks Paid Vacation FMLA Sick Leave Social Security Minimum Wage Civil Rights Act/Title VII (Prohibits Employer Discrimination) 8-Hour Work Day Overtime Pay Child Labor Laws Occupational Safety & Health Act (OSHA) 40 Hour Work Week Worker's Compensation (Worker's Comp) Unemployment Insurance Pensions Workplace Safety Standards and Regulations Employer Health Care Insurance Collective Bargaining Rights for Employees Wrongful Termination Laws Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 Whistleblower Protection Laws Employee Polygraph Protect Act (Prohibits Employer from using a lie detector test on an employee) Veteran's Employment and Training Services (VETS) Compensation increases and Evaluations (Raises) Sexual Harassment Laws Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Holiday Pay Employer Dental, Life, and Vision Insurance Privacy Rights Pregnancy and Parental Leave Military Leave The Right to Strike Public Education for Children Equal Pay Acts of 1963 & 2011 (Requires employers pay men and women equally for the same amount of work) Laws Ending Sweatshops in the United States
It also seems like the discussion of non-interference with a potential unionization effort of the Long Island warehouse/distribution center was an issue. It wasn’t all about the HQ but rather all of the ancillary issues, as well as the arrogance exhibited by Amazon executives in that they hired no locals to negotiate in NYC.
Kind of reminds me of being in Seattle in 2013 for Pearl Jam and how the locals had so much swagger because of their super bowl victory, how cocky they all were. Well, we all know what happened the following year ( Malcolm Butler). Guess Bezos and Amazon ought to learn how to “play the game?” Or be petulant like Team Trump Treason. And guess what? LIC will be fine.
Wasn't it Staten Island?
Hired no locals to negotiate?? What is that... greasing palms? Why would they need "consultants"? That's corrupt NY politics.
That’s knowing how to talk like locals, nuance. Staten Island or Long Island, does it matter? Amazon is fiercely anti union. Drivers, teamsters, and warehouse workers. The thing is, they don’t have to be. They could pay $30 an hour to the picker, build and pay for their HQ and not miss a dinner, a yacht, a fifth home, or anything. It’s obscene.
It's not obscene, it's capitalism. Say today I'm a small business owner (~$20K salary because I'm a startup), I do my research on working wages for a warehouse worker, and decide on $15 an hour targeting low end of the wage spectrum for that role (aka pricing the worth of the labour based on the market). A lucrative year goes by, and I commit to a $90K salary. Another, and I'm at $300K (24x my Y1 income). I keep up with cost of living wages for my worker, and I still feel that that I'm looking to hire someone in that role from the low end of the wage spectrum. When and why does my obligation change from being fair relative to the market, to being 'fair relative to my income' (which in itself seems arbitrary)?
This is expecting a lot of ethical behaviour from corporations, in addition to asking CEOs to raise costs without tying that back to an eventual bottom line increase - ignoring fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders to not tank the stock prices. It's the responsibility of the government to form laws to produce fair and equitable for its citizens. It's the responsibility of the corporations to adhere to those laws - not to be their own ethical watchdogs.
You could just have easily said, "It's not obscene, it's greed". Bono (who is no fan of taxes, full disclosure) sang "What you thought was freedom was just greed". We get that public companies must build value for their shareholders. No one is arguing against that. But perhaps those shareholders have a higher estate tax when they pass away (hence your point on changing laws).
Perhaps the option is that the government does not get it but your favorite non-profit organization or foundation. Perhaps to keep the family business or family farm in the family there is a requirement when a generation passes that the portion of the value that would go to the government is transferred to a foundation so the company does not need to sell its assets to pay the estate tax but the foundation can use dividends to do some good for the community.
You're right, that does summarize it nicely!
If the government can somehow execute on that vision you outlined, I'd be all for it. I like the idea of a government applying it across the board because a business doesn't have to accept a competitive disadvantage compared to its peers to be good. I'm sure there are tons of challenges to work through to make that work but it's probably possible to find a way.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Are CEO's 271 times more valuable than the average employee? Do they work 271 times harder, put in 271 times more hours? Maybe they are 271 times smarter than the average employee? Maybe they contribute 271 times more to society?
Are CEO's 271 times more valuable than the average employee? Do they work 271 times harder, put in 271 times more hours? Maybe they are 271 times smarter than the average employee? Maybe they contribute 271 times more to society?
If they think that compensation is appropriate then they are 271 times greedier than the average employee.
It also seems like the discussion of non-interference with a potential unionization effort of the Long Island warehouse/distribution center was an issue. It wasn’t all about the HQ but rather all of the ancillary issues, as well as the arrogance exhibited by Amazon executives in that they hired no locals to negotiate in NYC.
Kind of reminds me of being in Seattle in 2013 for Pearl Jam and how the locals had so much swagger because of their super bowl victory, how cocky they all were. Well, we all know what happened the following year ( Malcolm Butler). Guess Bezos and Amazon ought to learn how to “play the game?” Or be petulant like Team Trump Treason. And guess what? LIC will be fine.
Wasn't it Staten Island?
Hired no locals to negotiate?? What is that... greasing palms? Why would they need "consultants"? That's corrupt NY politics.
That’s knowing how to talk like locals, nuance. Staten Island or Long Island, does it matter? Amazon is fiercely anti union. Drivers, teamsters, and warehouse workers. The thing is, they don’t have to be. They could pay $30 an hour to the picker, build and pay for their HQ and not miss a dinner, a yacht, a fifth home, or anything. It’s obscene.
It's not obscene, it's capitalism. Say today I'm a small business owner (~$20K salary because I'm a startup), I do my research on working wages for a warehouse worker, and decide on $15 an hour targeting low end of the wage spectrum for that role (aka pricing the worth of the labour based on the market). A lucrative year goes by, and I commit to a $90K salary. Another, and I'm at $300K (24x my Y1 income). I keep up with cost of living wages for my worker, and I still feel that that I'm looking to hire someone in that role from the low end of the wage spectrum. When and why does my obligation change from being fair relative to the market, to being 'fair relative to my income' (which in itself seems arbitrary)?
This is expecting a lot of ethical behaviour from corporations, in addition to asking CEOs to raise costs without tying that back to an eventual bottom line increase - ignoring fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders to not tank the stock prices. It's the responsibility of the government to form laws to produce fair and equitable for its citizens. It's the responsibility of the corporations to adhere to those laws - not to be their own ethical watchdogs.
What is obscene is Amazon and Bezos begging for $3BB in handouts.
I think you mentioned your family having 5 brick and mortar stores, right? Now let’s say your family decides to open a sixth store in an economically depressed part of town but the area needs some infrastructure improvements and you don’t quite have the financing for what it takes. I’d be supportive of your family receiving a similarly ratioed tax incentive/break as Amazon. But once you’ve reached the wealth attainment like amazon and Bezos, you’re on your own.
I’d also like to think as your family income increases, the pay of your employees would increase beyond the rate of inflation, or in the form of healthcare/retirement/education benefits or bonuses. Business schools need to reintroduce ethics and morals into the curriculum. The disparity in pay between workers and owners or ceos is what is obscene.
One example: caterpillar won a six year wage freeze from their union despite $37k in profits per employee. They have 55k employees who average $50k per year. That’s obscene.
Then this is what should be shown to the politicians that this is the future normalization we're looking to achieve! The onus is on them, not corporations. From a business perspective, I feel companies that behave the right (and righteous) way and give a great employee and customer experience, will always feel better and do better, but I think we'll be disappointed if we expect that of businesses across the board. If we as customers are more withholding and refuse to work with businesses behaving unethically and often bear higher costs elsewhere, maybe that's how we can threaten that power and force that accountability though. Edit: The point is, Amazon and the city both had their sense of value from this. Both sides were willing to make concessions in return for certain benefits. One side decided they'd lose the battle (taxes) to win the war (economic growth) with their offer and I don't see what the problem with that is. And what negotiation in life doesn't have power dynamics involved? Isn't that always a component?
Post edited by benjs on
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Are CEO's 271 times more valuable than the average employee? Do they work 271 times harder, put in 271 times more hours? Maybe they are 271 times smarter than the average employee? Maybe they contribute 271 times more to society?
From 30Xs to 271Xs. Now imagine the economic impact if that 30Xs only went to 50Xs, wouldn’t that have a larger societal benefit or “trickle down” if some of that ceo pay went to workers?
If Amazon wants, we will take them here in Ontario...no problem. We could use the 25 000 jobs, plus spinoff jobs and decades of taxes that these jobs bring.
Are CEO's 271 times more valuable than the average employee? Do they work 271 times harder, put in 271 times more hours? Maybe they are 271 times smarter than the average employee? Maybe they contribute 271 times more to society?
I personally don't think that multiplier makes sense, but I think someone has the right to arrive at it if they choose. How many times more does a CEO multiply the wealth of a business over time than the average employee? I know that's an un-answerable question, but a CEO's worth to a company isn't as quantifiable as 'hardness' of work, hours contributed, etc. Some of a CEO's responsibilities including synthesizing vast amounts of knowledge and helping activate peoples' energies within the business, distilling complicated realities and arriving at simple strategies. Those aren't commoditized skills.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Are CEO's 271 times more valuable than the average employee? Do they work 271 times harder, put in 271 times more hours? Maybe they are 271 times smarter than the average employee? Maybe they contribute 271 times more to society?
I personally don't think that multiplier makes sense, but I think someone has the right to arrive at it if they choose. How many times more does a CEO multiply the wealth of a business over time than the average employee? I know that's an un-answerable question, but a CEO's worth to a company isn't as quantifiable as 'hardness' of work, hours contributed, etc. Some of a CEO's responsibilities including synthesizing vast amounts of knowledge and helping activate peoples' energies within the business, distilling complicated realities and arriving at simple strategies. Those aren't commoditized skills.
Agreed, but this isn't even the calculus that business owners use, whether private or a CEO. They don't say.. okay, how much do I need to be comfortable and then I'll distribute the rest to employees. That's not market economics nor is it human nature. They say "what is FMV for a person doing this job, in this market, and what do I need to pay on top of that to ensure retention?" That's how much they pay. In other words, if FMV for a statistician is 100k, I'm not going to pay 150k just because I can. I'm going to be 110k. Now if this person becomes management and adds unique value, then that person will be able to negotiate for more. But no one pays, nor have they ever paid, "what is possible". They pay what the work is worth.
Are CEO's 271 times more valuable than the average employee? Do they work 271 times harder, put in 271 times more hours? Maybe they are 271 times smarter than the average employee? Maybe they contribute 271 times more to society?
I personally don't think that multiplier makes sense, but I think someone has the right to arrive at it if they choose. How many times more does a CEO multiply the wealth of a business over time than the average employee? I know that's an un-answerable question, but a CEO's worth to a company isn't as quantifiable as 'hardness' of work, hours contributed, etc. Some of a CEO's responsibilities including synthesizing vast amounts of knowledge and helping activate peoples' energies within the business, distilling complicated realities and arriving at simple strategies. Those aren't commoditized skills.
Agreed, but this isn't even the calculus that business owners use, whether private or a CEO. They don't say.. okay, how much do I need to be comfortable and then I'll distribute the rest to employees. That's not market economics nor is it human nature. They say "what is FMV for a person doing this job, in this market, and what do I need to pay on top of that to ensure retention?" That's how much they pay. In other words, if FMV for a statistician is 100k, I'm not going to pay 150k just because I can. I'm going to be 110k. Now if this person becomes management and adds unique value, then that person will be able to negotiate for more. But no one pays, nor have they ever paid, "what is possible". They pay what the work is worth.
Exactly. And I don't think a person's obligated to pay above or under market value because of who they are.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
The home of Amazon has a huge homeless problem. A rising tide raises all ships my ass...
If you like no soul for your town and trendy condos then Amazon is your gig.
You think Seattle's homeless issue is due to Amazon's proximity?
Of course. Business are to blame for everything and only politicians can save us!
What do you think the US would look like without government intervention? I would say you'd have polluted rivers, smog, vast monopolies, event greater wealth disparity, etc.... On the flip side, with total government power you have Russia and China which is not good either.
What I was saying is that Amazon's presence provides jobs for that city, but that city like San Francisco is losing its soul (chain stores and restaurants, rising property values that force existing residents out, etc...). It is a trade off and that is all I was saying.
But with Seattle's homeless problem, how did it go when they tried to increase taxes to pay for it? Yeah, Amazon whined like a little baby and said they would take their ball and go home. Amazon only takes. Green Disease.
I think a nice balance of business and government “checks” are appropriate. Certainly a need for oversight.
Right. The wealth disparity is just despicable right now. There is clearly a problem. Yeah, Bezos had a great idea, but should he be compensated billions for it? I am turning into a liberal as I age because the inequity of all of this is absurd. Where the line is drawn I can't say.
The problem isn't billionaires, the problem is the tax code that renders useless the theory of progressive taxes. Now billionaires certainly influence the tax code, so I'm not arguing that. But I don't have an issue with Bezos or Gates being fabulously wealthy because they had fabulous ideas and executed on them. That's a lot harder than people think.
130 billion is beyond fabulously wealthy... its fucking absurd, I don't give AF if he sold books online or not
If you liquidated Bezos's entire net worth and redistributed it evenly amongst Americans, each person would get $300. Distribute it amongst everyone in the world and it's about $15. There's a problem with scale when people get all red-assed over billionaires.
The power and influence that comes with wealth, though, can certainly be a problem. If we want to solve that, it's about decentralizing power and influence so there's little to be bought. Just using the force of the state to rob someone has no impact on the actual problem.
That's one person. Now do the top 10%.
You're confusing net worth with income, so the whole point is moot anyhow.
Counterpoint: redistributing income has a direct positive impact on homelessness, hunger, poverty community health and infant mortality rates.
If you take the financial incentive out of innovation, why would one choose to innovate? Why not be lazy and wait for the handout? You know communism has been tried a few times, without success.
No one is removing the financial incentive to innovate. We're not nationalising industry and removing profit. This isn't communism ooga booga
By ensuring society is able to provide fundamental physiological needs, you are freeing up resources for people to innovate.
Sure, some people are lazy and will wait for the handout. But how is that different than now? These people will always be a burden on society, this is a different way of dealing with that problem.
If you liquidated Bezos's entire net worth and redistributed it evenly amongst Americans, each person would get $300. Distribute it amongst everyone in the world and it's about $15. There's a problem with scale when people get all red-assed over billionaires.
The power and influence that comes with wealth, though, can certainly be a problem. If we want to solve that, it's about decentralizing power and influence so there's little to be bought. Just using the force of the state to rob someone has no impact on the actual problem.
That's one person. Now do the top 10%.
You're confusing net worth with income, so the whole point is moot anyhow.
Counterpoint: redistributing income has a direct positive impact on homelessness, hunger, poverty community health and infant mortality rates.
If you take the financial incentive out of innovation, why would one choose to innovate? Why not be lazy and wait for the handout? You know communism has been tried a few times, without success.
No one is removing the financial incentive to innovate. We're not nationalising industry and removing profit. This isn't communism ooga booga
By ensuring society is able to provide fundamental physiological needs, you are freeing up resources for people to innovate.
Sure, some people are lazy and will wait for the handout. But how is that different than now? These people will always be a burden on society, this is a different way of dealing with that problem.
Maslow pyramid always comes in handy.
Progressive taxes is the way to go, not some arbitrary cap on wealth.
The home of Amazon has a huge homeless problem. A rising tide raises all ships my ass...
If you like no soul for your town and trendy condos then Amazon is your gig.
You think Seattle's homeless issue is due to Amazon's proximity?
Of course. Business are to blame for everything and only politicians can save us!
What do you think the US would look like without government intervention? I would say you'd have polluted rivers, smog, vast monopolies, event greater wealth disparity, etc.... On the flip side, with total government power you have Russia and China which is not good either.
What I was saying is that Amazon's presence provides jobs for that city, but that city like San Francisco is losing its soul (chain stores and restaurants, rising property values that force existing residents out, etc...). It is a trade off and that is all I was saying.
But with Seattle's homeless problem, how did it go when they tried to increase taxes to pay for it? Yeah, Amazon whined like a little baby and said they would take their ball and go home. Amazon only takes. Green Disease.
I think a nice balance of business and government “checks” are appropriate. Certainly a need for oversight.
Right. The wealth disparity is just despicable right now. There is clearly a problem. Yeah, Bezos had a great idea, but should he be compensated billions for it? I am turning into a liberal as I age because the inequity of all of this is absurd. Where the line is drawn I can't say.
The problem isn't billionaires, the problem is the tax code that renders useless the theory of progressive taxes. Now billionaires certainly influence the tax code, so I'm not arguing that. But I don't have an issue with Bezos or Gates being fabulously wealthy because they had fabulous ideas and executed on them. That's a lot harder than people think.
130 billion is beyond fabulously wealthy... its fucking absurd, I don't give AF if he sold books online or not
What if trump signs an executive order to break up Amazon and the stock tanks to a third. Considering the vast majority of his wealth is in stocks, not liquid, he'd be just a normal billionaire. Would you celebrate Trump's EO? Does it matter to you that almost all of his wealth is on paper and dependent on share price?
I thought these were white collar jobs. Was Amazon going to violate NY labour laws? Other than government, not many white colour jobs are union jobs? Are they?
These NY politicians and apparent labor unions are channeling their inner Trumps.
I'm not sure where the union fits in here. Why would white colour workers want a union? It now seems that the people who were opposed are just grasping at air now.
Then why did Amazon insist on no union?
If you believe Amazon was serious about coming here telling the strongest union city in the country no unions I got a bridge to sell you about 5 miles from where their alleged HQ2 was supposed to go.
These were mostly white collar jobs. Exactly what union did you expect?
Sale! Enjoy the bridge! You know there's more to this story that the national MSM is not picking up on?
The day before Amazon cancelled their NYC HQ their executives had a meeting.
I thought these were white collar jobs. Was Amazon going to violate NY labour laws? Other than government, not many white colour jobs are union jobs? Are they?
These NY politicians and apparent labor unions are channeling their inner Trumps.
I'm not sure where the union fits in here. Why would white colour workers want a union? It now seems that the people who were opposed are just grasping at air now.
Then why did Amazon insist on no union?
If you believe Amazon was serious about coming here telling the strongest union city in the country no unions I got a bridge to sell you about 5 miles from where their alleged HQ2 was supposed to go.
These were mostly white collar jobs. Exactly what union did you expect?
Sale! Enjoy the bridge! You know there's more to this story that the national MSM is not picking up on?
The day before Amazon cancelled their NYC HQ their executives had a meeting.
I read this the other day. It's about Staten Island, an existing site. I don't understand your implication. Plus the article throws cold water on the notion that Amazon wants to "ban" unions. Rather, they wouldn't commit go being neutral. And why should they? Are the union leaders vowing to remain neutral as well?
I thought these were white collar jobs. Was Amazon going to violate NY labour laws? Other than government, not many white colour jobs are union jobs? Are they?
These NY politicians and apparent labor unions are channeling their inner Trumps.
I'm not sure where the union fits in here. Why would white colour workers want a union? It now seems that the people who were opposed are just grasping at air now.
Then why did Amazon insist on no union?
If you believe Amazon was serious about coming here telling the strongest union city in the country no unions I got a bridge to sell you about 5 miles from where their alleged HQ2 was supposed to go.
These were mostly white collar jobs. Exactly what union did you expect?
Sale! Enjoy the bridge! You know there's more to this story that the national MSM is not picking up on?
The day before Amazon cancelled their NYC HQ their executives had a meeting.
I read this the other day. It's about Staten Island, an existing site. I don't understand your implication. Plus the article throws cold water on the notion that Amazon wants to "ban" unions. Rather, they wouldn't commit go being neutral. And why should they? Are the union leaders vowing to remain neutral as well?
I thought these were white collar jobs. Was Amazon going to violate NY labour laws? Other than government, not many white colour jobs are union jobs? Are they?
These NY politicians and apparent labor unions are channeling their inner Trumps.
I'm not sure where the union fits in here. Why would white colour workers want a union? It now seems that the people who were opposed are just grasping at air now.
Then why did Amazon insist on no union?
If you believe Amazon was serious about coming here telling the strongest union city in the country no unions I got a bridge to sell you about 5 miles from where their alleged HQ2 was supposed to go.
These were mostly white collar jobs. Exactly what union did you expect?
Sale! Enjoy the bridge! You know there's more to this story that the national MSM is not picking up on?
The day before Amazon cancelled their NYC HQ their executives had a meeting.
I read this the other day. It's about Staten Island, an existing site. I don't understand your implication. Plus the article throws cold water on the notion that Amazon wants to "ban" unions. Rather, they wouldn't commit go being neutral. And why should they? Are the union leaders vowing to remain neutral as well?
I think the implication is pretty obvious.
Interesting. So the unions we’re trying to use the new deal to get something at a different location?
Comments
Perhaps the estate tax can be a reward for the teachers or the non-profit employees who don't make much money but have an impact on people just as much as any CEO has. The CEO gets more income and has more toys during their life but when all is said and done the CEO gives back a big chunk when they die to the people so the teachers and the non-profits have more resources to work with.
No one is arguing for communism, but arguing to improve a capitalist system that results in a obscene transfer of wealth from the poor/middle class to the super wealthy. And the gap is only going to grow as processes become less labor intensive.
CNBC reported a stat that the top 10% of adults own 85% of the world's wealth. That's a problem.
For example, say a diamond mine may have been purchased by a family (or stolen, who knows) 200 years ago. The people in that town/region may be poor but that diamond mine benefits them very little because of something that happened 200 years ago. You have this great resource in your backyard but some rich family in Europe has 28 houses all over the world because of it. There has to be a limit to how long that mass hoarding of wealth can take place.
For sure. Like I said it is complicated. You don't want to take a successful family business from the next generation who is running it well and then the government runs it into the ground. Jobs exist because of business owners so I'm not arguing against them. At some point though the reward to the business owner is probably more than it should be. Congrats, you had a great idea. That doesn't mean you should be able to buy three small islands in the Carribean. "Oh, you worked 60 hours a week and so you think you should get two towers in Manhattan? Lots of people work hard."
This is expecting a lot of ethical behaviour from corporations, in addition to asking CEOs to raise costs without tying that back to an eventual bottom line increase - ignoring fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders to not tank the stock prices. It's the responsibility of the government to form laws to produce fair and equitable for its citizens. It's the responsibility of the corporations to adhere to those laws - not to be their own ethical watchdogs.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I think you mentioned your family having 5 brick and mortar stores, right? Now let’s say your family decides to open a sixth store in an economically depressed part of town but the area needs some infrastructure improvements and you don’t quite have the financing for what it takes. I’d be supportive of your family receiving a similarly ratioed tax incentive/break as Amazon. But once you’ve reached the wealth attainment like amazon and Bezos, you’re on your own.
I’d also like to think as your family income increases, the pay of your employees would increase beyond the rate of inflation, or in the form of healthcare/retirement/education benefits or bonuses. Business schools need to reintroduce ethics and morals into the curriculum. The disparity in pay between workers and owners or ceos is what is obscene.
One example: caterpillar won a six year wage freeze from their union despite $37k in profits per employee. They have 55k employees who average $50k per year. That’s obscene.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
You could just have easily said, "It's not obscene, it's greed". Bono (who is no fan of taxes, full disclosure) sang "What you thought was freedom was just greed". We get that public companies must build value for their shareholders. No one is arguing against that. But perhaps those shareholders have a higher estate tax when they pass away (hence your point on changing laws).
Perhaps the option is that the government does not get it but your favorite non-profit organization or foundation. Perhaps to keep the family business or family farm in the family there is a requirement when a generation passes that the portion of the value that would go to the government is transferred to a foundation so the company does not need to sell its assets to pay the estate tax but the foundation can use dividends to do some good for the community.
Seems like 3b is a small price to pay to secure 25000 jobs that will be in the New York area for decades to come. But politicians never really look at the big pictures. And if a few NY politicians egos are bruised, so what. Amazon's got the jobs. And as far as the unions go, who cares... business will always try to stop unionization. Honda and Toyota have kept the unions out of there Ontario operations. I paid union dues for 25 years, a huge waste of money unless of course, you had one foot out the door because of laziness and stupidity, then the union would spend like drunken sailors to keep those people.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/22/heres-how-much-ceo-pay-has-increased-compared-to-yours-over-the-years.html
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Weekends
All Breaks at Work, including your Lunch Breaks
Paid Vacation
FMLA
Sick Leave
Social Security
Minimum Wage
Civil Rights Act/Title VII (Prohibits Employer Discrimination)
8-Hour Work Day
Overtime Pay
Child Labor Laws
Occupational Safety & Health Act (OSHA)
40 Hour Work Week
Worker's Compensation (Worker's Comp)
Unemployment Insurance
Pensions
Workplace Safety Standards and Regulations
Employer Health Care Insurance
Collective Bargaining Rights for Employees
Wrongful Termination Laws
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Whistleblower Protection Laws
Employee Polygraph Protect Act (Prohibits Employer from using a lie detector test on an employee)
Veteran's Employment and Training Services (VETS)
Compensation increases and Evaluations (Raises)
Sexual Harassment Laws
Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
Holiday Pay
Employer Dental, Life, and Vision Insurance
Privacy Rights
Pregnancy and Parental Leave
Military Leave
The Right to Strike
Public Education for Children
Equal Pay Acts of 1963 & 2011 (Requires employers pay men and women equally for the same amount of work)
Laws Ending Sweatshops in the United States
If the government can somehow execute on that vision you outlined, I'd be all for it. I like the idea of a government applying it across the board because a business doesn't have to accept a competitive disadvantage compared to its peers to be good. I'm sure there are tons of challenges to work through to make that work but it's probably possible to find a way.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
If they think that compensation is appropriate then they are 271 times greedier than the average employee.
Edit: The point is, Amazon and the city both had their sense of value from this. Both sides were willing to make concessions in return for certain benefits. One side decided they'd lose the battle (taxes) to win the war (economic growth) with their offer and I don't see what the problem with that is. And what negotiation in life doesn't have power dynamics involved? Isn't that always a component?
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
How many times more does a CEO multiply the wealth of a business over time than the average employee? I know that's an un-answerable question, but a CEO's worth to a company isn't as quantifiable as 'hardness' of work, hours contributed, etc. Some of a CEO's responsibilities including synthesizing vast amounts of knowledge and helping activate peoples' energies within the business, distilling complicated realities and arriving at simple strategies. Those aren't commoditized skills.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
130 billion is beyond fabulously wealthy... its fucking absurd, I don't give AF if he sold books online or not
No one is removing the financial incentive to innovate. We're not nationalising industry and removing profit. This isn't communism ooga booga
By ensuring society is able to provide fundamental physiological needs, you are freeing up resources for people to innovate.
Sure, some people are lazy and will wait for the handout. But how is that different than now? These people will always be a burden on society, this is a different way of dealing with that problem.
Progressive taxes is the way to go, not some arbitrary cap on wealth.
Sale! Enjoy the bridge!
You know there's more to this story that the national MSM is not picking up on?
The day before Amazon cancelled their NYC HQ their executives had a meeting.
Wanna take a guess with who?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/business/economy/amazon-union-cuomo.html