Occupy Wall Street: Solidarity Thread for 2+2ers

[lozen]

The Vancouver occupy movement has had two overdoses and the Mayor has ordered it shut down.

Soon lots of US troops will be back with no jobs and be disposed of by the government and will join the occupy movement also in my opinion.

[bahbahmickey]

Originally Posted by plano

Lets not dispute that workers need to become more productive, they have been. Now companies need to pay higher salaries for this increase in productivity.

If companies start paying current employees more they will inevitably have to make some changes. Here are a few of the possible solutions:
a- become less profitable which will lead to slower growth and lower future hiring
b- upper management will be fired and replaced by other upper management people who are less productive which will lead to lower company productivity and end up with employees being fired or paid less
c- stop hiring and fire some current employees
d- move jobs overseas which will lead to less jobs in US but will lower the cost to produce goods and will be able to offer the same products in the US for less to save consumers money

What do you think is the best solution? Anything to add to the list?

Just for fun: How high would productivity climb if government jobs were cut in half?

[justin]

a. Assuming higher pay doesn't lead to higher productivity yes.
b. Asuming that somehow executive pay has been tied to performance and assuming that upper management cares about long term productivity and growth and not short term stock gians.
c. Assuming that higher pay doesn't lead to increased demand and thus further productivity
d. Assuming that most prices are directly linked to costs and that fetishcism doesn't effect prices. Assmuing that somehow by allowing companies to move overseas you are eliminating the monopolistic advantages such companies still hold due to government intereference(its amazing how free trade fanboys love outsourcing so much but say nothing of all the thousands of pages in laws governning such freeness). Assuming that somehow less jobs in america will not lead to a decrease in demand and offset whatever savings have been passed onto the consumer

option e) I can make a list with a bunch of assumptions that in no way addresses the graph i claim it does. It's amazing that you don't find anything wrong with ceo pay growth increasing by 400x which in no way helps productivity, but you somehow believe if workers were to gain a portion of that it's the end of the world as we know it.

[Tien]

Originally Posted by [Phill]

Lol, i see the strawmen are still taking a beating.

I'm going to try and merge my capitalist greed with social liberalism for a week or two and see if my mind can still stay sane.

[quix0tic]

Originally Posted by justin

It's amazing that you don't find anything wrong with ceo pay growth increasing by 400x which in no way helps productivity, but you somehow believe if workers were to gain a portion of that it's the end of the world as we know it.

+1 to this. TOTALLY irrational and clearly some weird strain of Ayn Rand conservative brainwashing at work.

[bahbahmickey]

Originally Posted by justin

a. Assuming higher pay doesn't lead to higher productivity yes.
b. Asuming that somehow executive pay has been tied to performance and assuming that upper management cares about long term productivity and growth and not short term stock gians.
c. Assuming that higher pay doesn't lead to increased demand and thus further productivity
d. Assuming that most prices are directly linked to costs and that fetishcism doesn't effect prices. Assmuing that somehow by allowing companies to move overseas you are eliminating the monopolistic advantages such companies still hold due to government intereference(its amazing how free trade fanboys love outsourcing so much but say nothing of all the thousands of pages in laws governning such freeness). Assuming that somehow less jobs in america will not lead to a decrease in demand and offset whatever savings have been passed onto the consumer

option e) I can make a list with a bunch of assumptions that in no way addresses the graph i claim it does. It's amazing that you don't find anything wrong with ceo pay growth increasing by 400x which in no way helps productivity, but you somehow believe if workers were to gain a portion of that it's the end of the world as we know it.

a- it most likely will lead to higher production, however this doesn't address the problem I was addressing that this still leads to higher unemployment
b-why would a company pay anyone more than someone else they can get who can do the same job? They are only increasing pay to increase performance. Yes, we have to assume that companies are out there trying to make money (the one and only reason a company is formed is to increase shareholder's wealth). If the cubs wanted to become a better team they would hire jeter and a-rod and not pay their current players more. Long term growth drives stock prices.
c-see "a"
d-prices are not controlled by costs (as you hint at), but follow the rules of supply and demand. As more jobs are sent overseas we will have growing unemployment which will lead to less $ in the hands of our lower and middle class which will lead to lower demand for many products in the US. However, we live in a globalized world so this wont effect the prices of goods as much as one may think.

Lowering of costs allows companies the ability to lower the prices of goods.

e-increasing CEO pay 400x does increase productivity or companies wouldn't do it. How long would you own the stock of a co. if they make some dumbass CEO and pay him millions?

I am 100% behind workers benefiting from the increase of productivity as I am a huge fan of commission based jobs and other forms of rewarding employees for hard work. However, I do believe that many low (or no) skilled employees are over payed- hints the labor markets inability to have supply meet demand.

[justin]

e-increasing CEO pay 400x does increase productivity or companies wouldn't do it. How long would you own the stock of a co. if they make some dumbass CEO and pay him millions?

The major problem is that, as you claim, the criteria by which we judge ceo success is immediate return to investment. So I ask you how long can investment create productivity while all we are concerned about is investment creating profit? As you say, CEO and shareholders have no obligation towards sustained productivity. Unfortunately, there aren't infinite successful opportunities to invest in. When you destroy the productivity of solid investments for the sake of increasing shareholder profits eventually it won't matter how much capital is out there if there are not enough opportunities left to invest in. I would think you would probably agree that the short term nature of politics is what make's it so ineffective, so why do you believe that such shortsightedness doesn't effect private investment? Both are just passing the buck.


d. Don't really no what your hinting at with the price of goods. Clearly globalized demand is minuscule in comparison to US demand, not to mention the recession is global.

Lowering of costs allows companies the ability to lower the prices of goods.

But the point is here that they don't have to because they are given monopolistic advantages through trade laws. If Nike was forced to freely compete with the tens of thousands of other shoe brands that could potentially be out there then they wouldn't be able to sell shoes for 100 dollars.

However, I do believe that many low (or no) skilled employees are over payed- hints the labor markets inability to have supply meet demand.

To what degree do we extend this analogy? Clearly there is some natural level of unemployment. Take for instance a family man or women. It would seem pretty clear to me that some market rate at which you claim would resolve all unemployment wouldn't change their decision making process. I don't believe that many people would value a 3.50 hr job as more important then taking care of their children. This person however would seek a job at say 15 $ an hr, so they are clearly still seeking employment. perhaps im strawmanning your argument but my point is it's hard to determine to what degree the min wage law effects lower income unemployment when we can't determine people's value systems.

[bahbahmickey]

Quote:
e-increasing CEO pay 400x does increase productivity or companies wouldn't do it. How long would you own the stock of a co. if they make some dumbass CEO and pay him millions?
The major problem is that, as you claim, the criteria by which we judge ceo success is immediate return to investment. So I ask you how long can investment create productivity while all we are concerned about is investment creating profit? As you say, CEO and shareholders have no obligation towards sustained productivity. Unfortunately, there aren't infinite successful opportunities to invest in. When you destroy the productivity of solid investments for the sake of increasing shareholder profits eventually it won't matter how much capital is out there if there are not enough opportunities left to invest in. I would think you would probably agree that the short term nature of politics is what make's it so ineffective, so why do you believe that such shortsightedness doesn't effect private investment? Both are just passing the buck.

If you have ever looked at a stock as a potential investment one of the things you most likely consider is consistent and sustainable revenue growth. These CEOs are fighting to increase revenues. Either I don't understand your argument here or I disagree with what I think it is (not sure which).
d. Don't really no what your hinting at with the price of goods. Clearly globalized demand is minuscule in comparison to US demand, not to mention the recession is global.

Just saying since demand for most products will go down (since there will be more unemployed that wont be able to purchase as many goods) the price will follow.
Quote:
Lowering of costs allows companies the ability to lower the prices of goods.
But the point is here that they don't have to because they are given monopolistic advantages through trade laws. If Nike was forced to freely compete with the tens of thousands of other shoe brands that could potentially be out there then they wouldn't be able to sell shoes for 100 dollars.

I am all for free trade!
Quote:
However, I do believe that many low (or no) skilled employees are over payed- hints the labor markets inability to have supply meet demand.
To what degree do we extend this analogy? Clearly there is some natural level of unemployment. Take for instance a family man or women. It would seem pretty clear to me that some market rate at which you claim would resolve all unemployment wouldn't change their decision making process. I don't believe that many people would value a 3.50 hr job as more important then taking care of their children. This person however would seek a job at say 15 $ an hr, so they are clearly still seeking employment. perhaps im strawmanning your argument but my point is it's hard to determine to what degree the min wage law effects lower income unemployment when we can't determine people's value systems.

No, I see your argument and understand that everyone, no matter if they have kids to take care of or not will freely choose if they want to work at the current mkt price or if they would rather not work (this applies no matter if min wage exists or not). With our current min wage we still have ppl that choose not to work because they would rather sit on their front porch and drink all day and collect unemployment than go to work and make $X/hr which is only a dollar or so more/hr than if they sat on their porch and were having fun.

I think the point I am making here is that we should give EVERYONE in America the option to work and w/ Min wage we are taking away this option. Let WE the people decide what the price of labor should be in this country.

[ILOVEPOKER929]

Originally Posted by SretiCentV

there's obviously no way we'll agree but I see the opposite of this as communism.

What would you call it?

You are correct that under capitalism people = commodities. And I would also say that if you see the opposite (weird word, what you really mean is the only alternative) of that is "communism" then I think it's perfectly reasonable for you to favor a system where humans = commodities. I would have the same view under that condition. However, where you go wrong is when you assume there's only two alternatives--Capitalism or communism. There's absolutely no reason to believe that. In fact, it's just flat out false. There are other alternatives.

[quix0tic]

Originally Posted by bahbahmickey

Quote:
e-increasing CEO pay 400x does increase productivity or companies wouldn't do it. How long would you own the stock of a co. if they make some dumbass CEO and pay him millions? ....
I think the point I am making here is that we should give EVERYONE in America the option to work and w/ Min wage we are taking away this option. Let WE the people decide what the price of labor should be in this country.[/I][/B]

Dude, how do you not get that the whole system is corrupt? You parrot these introductory econ concepts of self-regulating markets as if that is the real world and it's not. Given how corrupt things are, how can you not look at that and say, hey, this guy in making majillions of dollars and this other guy can't feed his family, maybe we should have a BASIC MINIMUM SAFETY NET in what is supposed to be A CIVILIZED country. No one is getting where they got just for the right reasons, at the top or the bottom of society. That being said, this is THE WEALTHIEST society in all of human history, perhaps we could use some of the opulence to make sure a minimum standard exists? I seriously don't get how this isn't just obvious to more people. The world of the Fortune 500 is as much ruled by high priced hookers and blow and sex parties on islands as it is by good leadership and intellect. The pirates these days do their thieving legally, and their soldiers are lawyers. Wake up man. They want you to believe they are all respectable but they are not. Go meet some multi-millionaries talk to them about how they got there and be prepared to be shocked at how either stupid or screwed up some of the stories are going to be.

[Shoe]

Where are these 400x CEO pay things coming from (such as starting year to when? -- I completely agree that executive pay has gone up disproportionally, just trying to figure out the basis of comparison). For example, if a CEO made 25,000 a year in 1950, x400 that would be $10M/year today. What are the start and end dates here?

[Boa Hancock]

OK are you guys showing solidarity with all of the protestors, including the rapists, the violent criminals, the antisemites, the homeless people haters, etc. or are you now being selective and only having solidarity with selected people within the movement?

I would hate to see any 2+2ers being associated with the evil elements of our society. I hope you are not in solidarity with them.

[daca]

yes

[bahbahmickey]

Originally Posted by quix0tic

Dude, how do you not get that the whole system is corrupt? You parrot these introductory econ concepts of self-regulating markets as if that is the real world and it's not. Given how corrupt things are, how can you not look at that and say, hey, this guy in making majillions of dollars and this other guy can't feed his family, maybe we should have a BASIC MINIMUM SAFETY NET in what is supposed to be A CIVILIZED country. No one is getting where they got just for the right reasons, at the top or the bottom of society. That being said, this is THE WEALTHIEST society in all of human history, perhaps we could use some of the opulence to make sure a minimum standard exists? I seriously don't get how this isn't just obvious to more people. The world of the Fortune 500 is as much ruled by high priced hookers and blow and sex parties on islands as it is by good leadership and intellect Please show source. The pirates these days do their thieving legally, and their soldiers are lawyers. Wake up man. They want you to believe they are all respectable but they are not. Go meet some multi-millionaries talk to them about how they got there and be prepared to be shocked at how either stupid or screwed up some of the stories are going to be.

I agree that there are things wrong with our current way of doing things (or as you say "our system"). Just a few things I would want changed: govt ability to tell us how to spend our money (no online gambling/ while they encourage lottery play), price fixing (minimum wage), start taxing everyone something (even if they still end up netting + $), make unions illegal for all govt jobs, end corporate taxes, etc.

It is sad to see that some guy can't feed his family, but that feeling is unaffected by seeing someone making millions a year.

We already haven't something similar to your "BASIC MINIMUM SAFETY NET" and its # 1 goal is to help poor people, however its #1 effect is discouraging work.

I don't think I will be as shocked as you are when you hear multi-millionaires stories of how they got their money because I already understand the concept of hard work.

[bahbahmickey]

Originally Posted by Shoe

Where are these 400x CEO pay things coming from (such as starting year to when? -- I completely agree that executive pay has gone up disproportionally, just trying to figure out the basis of comparison). For example, if a CEO made 25,000 a year in 1950, x400 that would be $10M/year today. What are the start and end dates here?

Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer to your question. To address your point about CEO pay going up disproportionally: have you ever thought about why this is even considered a problem.

EX: Given the choice of living in country A, where your purchasing power will grow 10% a year while many other people in the country will grow 25%/yr or country B where everyone's will grow 5%/yr where would you live?

Not trying to patronize anyone w/ the simple example, but I don't think most people (99%'ers mainly) think about this. They don't care if our middle class is better than any other countries middle class or if their purchasing power grows higher than every other country they still want more of what is rightfully not theirs. I think they would rather see the wealth in their country earn just as much as they do and they don't even care if everyone's purchasing power does below their current (a real possibility).