From that Commie Liberal mag known as the Business Insider...

carguy123 wrote: Do you think the guys at the top just lucked into their positions?

Absolutely. The belief that it's pure hard work and determination that allows you to rise to the top is the biggest fallacy in this country. In today's America it's who you were born, where you were born, when you were born, and who raises you. If Bill Gates was born about 5 years earlier, Bill Gates would not have founded Microsoft. If George W. Bush had been born George W. Smith, he would not have been president. Yes, you have to work hard, but everybody has to work hard, and equal effort in this country does not assure equal reward.

No, they planned, worked and went to school to learn how to do that. Do you think you can run one of those big corporations and juggle all the balls?

Given the opportunity and training, I think many of the people on this board would do as good or better job at managing a big corporation, or juggling balls.

It's not as easy as you think. You've got to be constantly on top of the market and changing with the times. Look at IBM & Xerox, once the biggest of the big. Where's Kodak?

Where are the CEOs and management teams that were in charge of those companies during their downfalls? Are they all paupers now?

bastomatic wrote:

No, they planned, worked and went to school to learn how to do that. Do you think you can run one of those big corporations and juggle all the balls?

Given the opportunity and training, I think many of the people on this board would do as good or better job at managing a big corporation, or juggling balls.

I'm absolutely 100% sure I could do Steve Elop or Steve Ballmer's jobs better, right now. I might not turn out to be a great CEO...but I'd sure as hell be better.

I can see the point of the article when it comes to some of the giant companies, but it almost makes it seem like business owners in general are E36 M3 heads if they make a big profit.

I type this as I just got out of my manager's office from getting my second raise this year(my first year). It is a medium sized tire company. But as a tire tech, I make as much as a store manager at Discount Tire or Kauffman Tire. This week we are also getting our quarterly profit share check. Oh, and my health care and life insurance are paid for.

On that same note, the owners of the company are a Jewish family from South Africa. They are LOADED and make a hell of a profit from running the stores.

The point of this post is that there are plenty of good companies run by good people. I have been lucky not only at this company but at the last two companies that I worked at.

Flight Service wrote:

racerdave600 wrote: And to say companies are making record profits is simply not true. Maybe a few are, but as a whole, most are struggling for survival right now.

"Mr. Madison, what you've just said;... is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul..." Mr. Oblaski, Principal; Billy Madison Well run companies are profiting like mad right now. Poorly run ones, are well poor.

Absolutely true.

See current stats: Corporate Profits and Leverage

Corporate profits are at all time highs, and the % of cash on the books at companies as a % of assets is at all time highs as well.

Those of you who said that this problem only exists with large, publicly-traded companies are sorely mistaken. I have a lot of friends who work for small, privately-owned construction companies. All of them are engineers or project managers (read: office staff).

As a whole, those companies are doing well. They continue to get large construction contracts and hire more employees. Yet the employees of these companies have gotten no raises for the past 5-6 years. One friend, in particular, has had a "temporary" one-day-per-month furlough that has lasted 4 years.

Another one had a meeting where the jackass owner of the company told them all how "expendable" they were.

My point is that the owners of these companies (and their families) are raking in money by stepping on their employees.

Sky_Render wrote: Another one had a meeting where the jackass owner of the company told them all how "expendable" they were.

One of my previous employers the general manager would start off company meetings reminding us that we can all be fired with no notification and no reason at any moment.

The same general manager would get a mid five-figure bonus if he was able to meet our financial goals without having to pay out bonuses to employees. The financial goals were only attainable if the employees met their bonus goals. We'd bust ass to meet our bonus goals, then find out "oh, we had to spend more money than we thought this year on X" and thus our bonuses would not be paid out. Even better I just found out that they would not count the last sales day of the year towards our bonus goals, which usually happened to be one of the highest sales days. Stupidly I fell for that three times before I quit.

My Dad ran his own business for years. He paid fair wages, treated the employees like family, and when he closed shop he found jobs for everyone at his friend's shops in the area. My Dad used the sales tax money he owed the IRS to pay the final employee paychecks. My Dad spent the next many years paying back the IRS personally. Dad made plenty of money over the years but he never treated his employee like a commodity.

Sky_Render wrote: Those of you who said that this problem only exists with large, publicly-traded companies are sorely mistaken.

Oh I never said that. It's just much easier to fix in private companies. Still bloody hard...but not borderline-impossible.

My sister does buying & retail for a private high-end furniture shop where the owners are horrible, horrible dicks. They're so shady with pay issues that I think they're one hair away from being investigated by the relevant agencies at any given time. They cut pay, lay off workers, give no benefits and bitch about how tough the economy is right before they hop into their high-end luxury cars and take extended vacations to Europe or the US where they stay in the best hotels in the big cities (my sister knows this because she sometimes goes along to attend conferences, at least she got to stay in one of the fancy hotels one time).

Still not as bad as my navigator who was so desperate for work that he took on a job "interning" at a big (private) construction company, where he fitted out the inside of buildings. One of the execs showed up and promised them they'd all be hired for jobs soon...I think that was almost 2 years ago, not E36 M3 came of it.

it is just (un)common sense that a happy employee is more productuve than an unhappy one. Probably on the order of three to one. A few more dollars an hour can make a big difference in productivity

Datsun310Guy wrote:

Sky_Render wrote: Another one had a meeting where the jackass owner of the company told them all how "expendable" they were.

We start out our yearly outside sales meetings with; "there's the door; if you're not happy you are welcome to leave, otherwise follow our lead and do what we ask". In reality they are right -- if you are not happy; move on to work somewhere that you can be happy. Unfortunately our sales guys take us up on it and jump ship after 12-18 months and I'm the guy that has to find/train their replacements.

Maybe, just maybe, if you didn't start the sales meeting with that line fewer guys would jump ship. Just a thought.

slefain wrote: Maybe, just maybe, if you didn't start the sales meeting with that line fewer guys would jump ship. Just a thought.

Sales guys are bit of a "special" lot. They are generally very much mercenaries and will jump ship for greener grass very easily (most are used to a lot of travel / moving around anyway).

Still probably not the best way to inspire the troops though (even if you don't really expect loyalty).

Some interesting observations

I am posting this as it provides some very interesting numbers. The writer of the xkcd comic also did a similar graph with respect to radiation as well which was the impetus for the 'Money" graph

xkcd's Money Graph

I think a very interesting statistic is at the end of the "Dollars" section. All numbers were adjusted for inflation:

1965 Worker's Average Hourly Wage - $19.61

1965 CEO Average Hourly Wage - $490.31

2007 Worker's Average Hourly Wage - $19.71

2007 CEO Average Hourly Wage - $5419.97

Now, I am all for getting compensated for taking the risk, but this is excessive. I don't buy the argument that you have to pay the giant salaries to attract the right talents at the top. If we were attracting the right talents, every company should be going gangbusters for all we are paying the boards/executives. Obviously, in a number of companies, we are not.

We are dealing with a "Insider's Club" mentality. We have a "small" network(s) of people that get multiple boards, are CEOs/COOs/CFOs/etc., and are just voting each other more and more money. It is the epitome of "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours'". We are the ones who are getting the shaft because of it.

We are also dealing with a short-term mentality, both on the investors/shareholders and the executives. It appears that, except in the rare cases or in small companies, there is no thought provided to the idea of if these policies would be to the benefit of the whole. Whether the whole be the company/employees, the customers, or the country. It is just a "I gotta get mine now" mentality. We can't be rid of this soon enough.

Beer Baron wrote: In reply to carguy123: There is a difference between wanting to be a "fat cat" and wanting to make enough of a living to afford a middle class lifestyle. Have decent housing, eat good food, own reliable transportation, be able to raise a family, save for retirement, and hopefully have some extra for a few luxuries like vacations.

One thing that employer's hilariously tend to forget is that they provide the jobs, sure, but SOMEBODY has to work them. And in certain fields, that person needs to be good, not mediocre or a warm body.

Unfortunately, the boss-men typically forget this in their all out greed for the almighty dollar. It's not a "we provide jobs so we are teh best" situation, it's a "I want to earn money and have what it takes to put this idea together, but I still need people to help me make it happen".

Has anyone considered that there maybe a variety of things leading to the average wage not increasing much? The modernization of production facilities (meaning that fewer workers are needed), a large population within the USA and the world (driving up supply of workers), a more global market (also creating a higher supply of workers), a failing education system (creating workers that are not as competitive in the world market compared to rising countries i.e. China and India). I mean it is easy to blame higher taxes or low minimum wage but sometimes things aren't so back and white.

Even if you want to ignore that instead of everyone working 3 days a week as sci-fi in the '50s and '60s correctly predicted would be possible by now from productivity advances, we've made a few people ludicrously rich so they can work by answering calls between golf rounds, there's the problem that Gen. Y'ers aren't getting the house and the car and the pretty good lifestyle from an average salary, as PHeller pointed out. Sometimes not even 2 out of 3.

I care when the CEO get a huge pay raise while having to cut the employees salaries/jobs. I care when the focus is on where the company is this quarter, and not where the company as a whole wants to be in 5 years.

I expect the CEO to be held to the same standards that I am being held to. If the company is losing money and has to cut the personnel/costs, then the CEO is not performing his best and should not be given a raise. If I do not perform and meet my goals/milestones laid out for me, then I don't get a raise.

I expect accountability. I expect respect. It is what is I would give to my CEO and expect it in return. I expect honesty and integrity. I would like to have someone leading us who is a Leader. Who can inspire everyone to work together toward our goals. Who works as part of the team to the benefit of the company, not just speaking at us. I do not expect or want platitudes and buzzwords.

I work for a company with the highest paid CEO in my state. I don't care that the CEO is the highest paid CEO. My current employer actually takes very good care of the employees here and has been run well through the bad economy. I see them providing benefits that were commonplace in the 50's and 60's. Things that are generally unheard of today. He treats the employees with respect. I applaud that. However, I do criticize him for taking such a big pay bonuses while our company has been losing money for the last several quarters. It again gets to accountability. If I'm not going to get rewarded for the company missing its goals (and I expect raises/bonuses are not going to be good this year), then he should not either.

I agree that on a whole that everyones' sense of entitlement has increased, is it not surprising that it has changed? Look at those numbers. Real wages have not increased (unless you consider $0.10/hr over the course of 42 years a real increase), unless you are in the higher echelons of the corporate world.

Housing prices have increased at a higher rate then the rate of inflation. My parents bought a 800 sq. ft. ranch house in 1972 for ~$30,000. This was a late 50's-early 60's style house in suburban NJ. In 2003, I bought a 1000 sq. ft. ranch in suburban MA for $310,000. This was a late 50's-early 60's ranch. A 10x increase in price over 30 years. I don't see that worker's average salary having increased in the same time by that amount. However, you can certainly see that increase in the CEO's salary.

If all you see is how great the top is doing, it is only natural for you to want a piece of that success. But the salaries have not kept up. Doesn't mean the aspirations don't change.

Datsun1500 wrote: Use that for the example above, can you live in a 3 bedroom house, drive an Accord, go out to eat 2 times a month, and be an average Joe on $40K? I think so.

EASILY.

The thing is they're not paying Gen. Y'ers that $19.71. PHeller was saying $12-14, which is not even the worst of it.

I think a part of it is that the Bachelor's degree is the new high school diploma, to get paid like a Gen. X'er with a Bachelor's a Gen. Y'er has to have a Master's at least.

Swank Force One wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote: Use that for the example above, can you live in a 3 bedroom house, drive an Accord, go out to eat 2 times a month, and be an average Joe on $40K? I think so.

EASILY.

Single dude datapoint who doesn't pay for his health insurance (still under 26 so I'm on Dad's plan fo' free!), auto insurance is super low (dads plan again with 5 vehicles) and no cell phone bill (thanks Mom! If she didn't pay, I'd be on a pay as you go cheapo plan). Car is a Miata that is paid for.

I make about that, give or take. I put away about 40% of my income to retirement. I rent a room in a house; if I wanted to I could get a mortgage on a house half the size for the same as I pay in rent. I also eat out probably 5-10 times a month, although it might just be fast food. So in short, yes you could--although the 3 bedroom house might be a stretch; more likely a 3 bedroom condo or 2 bedroom house unless I go out 20 minutes farther.

Another data point though: If I had student loans for the full bill of college, I would be putting away about 5% to retirement; the rest to student loans.

Another thing that I don't think has been discussed (although it has been alluded to): Our basic necessities today weren't even dreamed of in the 50's. I look at my utility bill every month and wish my roommate could do without cable. I could certainly go without it, and likely internet too. This doesn't even touch on cell phones.

I bet that the average American Joe could cut $300 a month of "necessities" down to $50 for internet at a basic cell phone plan. Once again, we're back at entitlement.

I think we need to pay a realistic wage to everyone. When there have been so many improvements over the years that have made us more productive as a workforce, shouldn't everyone see a benefit from the increased output, including the workers who are actually producing the output?

Datsun1500 wrote:

GameboyRMH wrote: t Gen. Y'ers *aren't* getting the house and the car and the pretty good lifestyle from an average salary, as PHeller pointed out. Sometimes not even 2 out of 3.

But why not? Using the average of $19.71 from above, a 40 hour a week job is $40,000 a year. You can't afford an average house and an average car on $40K? I was born in 1970. Growing up, we had a 3 bedroom house that was 30 years old, a Plymouth station wagon, and going out to eat was a big deal. Going to the beach for a week vacation was every other year. We had 1 TV. That was how most people in the neighborhood lived. Average people doing average things. Use that for the example above, can you live in a 3 bedroom house, drive an Accord, go out to eat 2 times a month, and be an average Joe on $40K? I think so.

$40k a year = $2100 a month take home? If you aren't putting anything in your 401k.

I live somewhere cheap and it could be tough. Mortgage, property tax, insurance on a $99,000 in the suburbs of Tulsa is $825. I know, that's my mortgage situation currently. And rent on a similar house is more expensive.

Say you drive a relatively new-ish Accord, $300/month, another $100/month for insurance/taxes, another $150 for gas (assuming 1 tank a week approx.)

We are at $1375 and haven't paid for utilities, bought any food, put money in savings or retirement.

$700 a month to cover food, utilities, savings, retirement, yikes.

We have a small house with all CFL bulbs and recent appliances, cable internet but no cable TV. The utilities come out to around $375 a month on the average plan.

We are now down to $325 a month to cover food, savings, retirement, emergencies, entertainment, GRM subscription.........getting pretty tight.

"Oh why does he have a car payment?" Fine, for my generation substitute that for student loans and you'll be on par.

Datsun1500 wrote: You can't afford an average house and an average car on $40K?

Dunno where you live, but your narrow-mindedness is showing. Plenty of places in the US you can't afford to live on that. A TON of places in Canada that you can't do that.

But of course, it depends on what you mean by "average" house. Here in Alberta, for instance, an "average house" is going to close to $400k. A brand new "starter home" will be $300k (maybe $250k if you build in po-dunk nowheresville). Used houses are typically worth the same, because what their building value lacks the prime-realestate they were built on makes up for it.

So, uh, yea, on my $50k per year wage, I can't realistically afford a house in a comfortable, responsible manner. I have a hard time justifying a 1 bedroom condo for $150k for just myself. Priorities I guess.

HiTempguy wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote: You can't afford an average house and an average car on $40K?

Dunno where you live, but your narrow-mindedness is showing. Plenty of places in the US you can't afford to live on that. A TON of places in Canada that you can't do that. But of course, it depends on what you mean by "average" house. Here in Alberta, for instance, an "average house" is going to close to $400k. A brand new "starter home" will be $300k (maybe $250k if you build in po-dunk nowheresville). Used houses are typically worth the same, because what their building value lacks the prime-realestate they were built on makes up for it. So, uh, yea, on my $50k per year wage, I can't realistically afford a house in a comfortable, responsible manner. I have a hard time justifying a 1 bedroom condo for $150k for just myself. Priorities I guess.

Sooo... live where you can afford.

If you can't afford to live in an area where your average house is a half million dollars, then you can't afford to live there.

Sad trombone noises, the end.

Also bear in mind that $40k a year is an average number being thrown out. Obviously in areas where your average house is a half million, the average pay is VERY likely to be higher.