Quote:

They just want OTHERS to pay their employees more to buy THEIR products because they pay their OWN employees the least amount they can get away with to maximize THEIR profits.

---

akira_akuma said:

yeah, but is that what's really happening?

if it is, is this being coerced (by socio-political or political means)? or is this a natural fallibility? this...

Quote:

They just want OTHERS to pay their employees more to buy THEIR products because they pay their OWN employees the least amount they can get away with to maximize THEIR profits.

---

i mean. what happens if "they" also give "their" employees more pay, like "they" want others to?

who is "they"? liberal business owners?

i'm not a business owner; i mean, i've stated before business and economics is not my forte, i've simply never been involved enough to know these things. but i've done my best guesswork, so maybe you can help explain this above concept to me.

---

"what happens if 'they' also give 'their' employees more pay"

If the CEO pays out more for labor expenses than he should, he'll be fired. 

Does Costco pay more than the industry average?  Yes, but it actually saves them money in the longer term because it results in less turnover and higher productivity. 

With that being said, you only pay (for labor) to meet the best return on investment.

Quote:

With that being said, you only pay (for labor) to meet the best return on investment.

---

akira_akuma said:

Quote:

With that being said, you only pay (for labor) to meet the best return on investment.

---

yes, of course, i understand that much already...

the CEO leverages the wages [figuratively speaking] with the best return of investment -- correct?

but how are "they" pursuing such a 'pay-out' for themselves, as you suggested? are they really? and who is doing so?

and let's say the industry 'average' can be stipulated as by a regulatory process, in order to shift the average to a higher percentage- is that not feasible?

i figure you might say that that would require some sort of regulatory body? i dunno, again, it sounds like it might be a different model than what you'd want to propose, but i'm just trying to understand where you're both coming from here. honestly.

---

The Ecstatic said:

Is it any surprise that corporate America wants to have its cake and eat it too?

---

qman said:

Fal is suggesting that CEO's want consumers to have purchasing power for their products because many identify with liberalism, yet I pointed out those CEO's won't pay their own employees more money, they just want OTHER CEO's to pay their employees more money.

---

Quote:

CEO's want consumers to have purchasing power for their products

---

Quote:

yet I pointed out those CEO's won't pay their own employees more money, they just want OTHER CEO's to pay their employees more money.

---

well, i won't presume on him to not have some truthful rationale backing his reasoning- perhaps he just has a greater scope of understanding than me.

i like to break down the rhetoric/idea to it's logical conclusion...personally, i feel like people tend to fault themselves from a logical standpoint, in order to predicate a more helpful solution than the alternatives presented.

just because i find fault, doesn't mean their idea can't work...the question is, which idea works best...and it seems to me, that totally depends on one's point of view.

why can't those CEO's pay their employees more money if, like i said, the industry 'average' can be stipulated as by a regulatory process, in where the average can be shifted, and that is in terms of all CEO's raising their employees wages, by perhaps a regulating body, or perhaps raising prices...take for example, if Trump has companies invest in "building the dollar's value", maybe in the future a raise in consumer prices is feasible, and then the companies can increase the wage?

see this is what i see- maybe i'm flaunting my naivete here, but it seems a bit of 'back and forth' between liberal policy and conservative policy seems to be feasible...this is why i backed Sanders as 'a good idea', because this is what i saw...(though some people would probably have you think otherwise about why i liked Sanders, presuming what my ideas are) first a Sanders-type policy, then a Trump-type policy...again, why i backed Trump, vise-versa, after Sanders was out- because [obvious reason a: because, you know, poop on a Clinton establishment] you could, ideally, still do the same thing, but in reverse, do a Trump-type policy, then later, a Sanders-type policy. tit-for-tat. personally, the way i see it, if you don't do it that way, some people will be damned, and that leads to the predicament of 'damned if you do, damned if you don't'. but i'll freely admit, i don't have even all that figured out, and could be very wrong....but i'm just saying, it seems there is a cross-roads here between what is feasible, what is likely, and what is inevitable.

The Ecstatic said:

Is it any surprise that corporate America wants to have its cake and eat it too?

---

qman said:

The Ecstatic said:

Is it any surprise that corporate America wants to have its cake and eat it too?

---

Liberal CEO's and billionaires = Oxymoron.

---

The Ecstatic said:

qman said:

The Ecstatic said:

Is it any surprise that corporate America wants to have its cake and eat it too?

---

Liberal CEO's and billionaires = Oxymoron.

---

Not really. CEOs have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders, which almost always result in low wages/benefits. Liberal CEOs (in practice) don't exist because they can't exist.

---

qman said:

One minuscule exception to the rule (Dan Price) isn't demonstrable evidence proving your argument.

Either is a few veterans donating pocket change to Bernie in a multi-trillion dollar industry. 

Just stop, I'm starting to feel embarrassed for you now.

---

Quote:

Six months after Price's announcement, Gravity has defied doubters. Revenue is growing at double the previous rate. Profits have also doubled. Gravity did lose a few customers: Some objected to what seemed like a political statement that put pressure on them to raise their own wages; others feared price hikes or service cutbacks. But media reports suggesting that panicked customers were fleeing have proved false. In fact, Gravity's customer retention rate rose from 91 to 95 percent in the second quarter. Only two employees quit -- a nonevent. Jason Haley isn't one of them. He is still an employee, and a better paid one.

---

ballsalsa said:

qman said:

Fal is suggesting that CEO's want consumers to have purchasing power for their products because many identify with liberalism, yet I pointed out those CEO's won't pay their own employees more money, they just want OTHER CEO's to pay their employees more money.

---

Lets leave the "because many identify with liberalism" part out and examine the rest of this post for a moment.

Quote:

CEO's want consumers to have purchasing power for their products

---

This seems self explanatory, and is undoubtedly true.

Quote:

yet I pointed out those CEO's won't pay their own employees more money, they just want OTHER CEO's to pay their employees more money.

---

This is a blanket statement that while true much of the time, is almost certainly not true in all cases, however, lets assume that it is factual and go from there.

If:
A) CEOs want consumers to have purchasing power for their products
B) CEOs want other companies to pay their employees more, while not raising the wages of their own employees

And:
C)Higher wages equate to greater consumer purchasing power
D)Greater purchasing power leads to increased consumer spending

Then:
E)A third party should mandate or incentivize wage increases in order that the benefit be available to all business.

---

qman said:

The Ecstatic said:

qman said:

The Ecstatic said:

Is it any surprise that corporate America wants to have its cake and eat it too?

---

Liberal CEO's and billionaires = Oxymoron.

---

Not really. CEOs have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders, which almost always result in low wages/benefits. Liberal CEOs (in practice) don't exist because they can't exist.

---

So we're in agreement, now explain that logic to Fal and Wof.

---

Bigbadwooof said:

qman said:

One minuscule exception to the rule (Dan Price) isn't demonstrable evidence proving your argument.

Either is a few veterans donating pocket change to Bernie in a multi-trillion dollar industry. 

Just stop, I'm starting to feel embarrassed for you now.

---

Quote:

Six months after Price's announcement, Gravity has defied doubters. Revenue is growing at double the previous rate. Profits have also doubled. Gravity did lose a few customers: Some objected to what seemed like a political statement that put pressure on them to raise their own wages; others feared price hikes or service cutbacks. But media reports suggesting that panicked customers were fleeing have proved false. In fact, Gravity's customer retention rate rose from 91 to 95 percent in the second quarter. Only two employees quit -- a nonevent. Jason Haley isn't one of them. He is still an employee, and a better paid one.

---

Don't feel embarrassed for me. What you said was 'impossible', has literally caused Gravity to double their profits. All I need to prove you wrong is one example, but I've also provided the example of the 0.01%er Nick Hanauer who sees New Deal politics as the only way forward.

If leftist ideals were so 'impossible', we wouldn't find even one example in any of the places you've mentioned. However, I am sure I can find multiple examples. So, don't feel embarrassed for me, Qman. Feel embarrassed that you've yet again made a claim that was proven wrong.

As far as the military, I've provided more than one example, and I find it quite hilarious that you think the military doesn't have any leftists in it. It wasn't how much money they donated, by the way, it was the fact that they gave it to Bernie. We're looking at their ideals, not how much money they've donated.

Honestly Qman, I am truly embarrassed for you. You can't even work out what is and isn't pertinent to the arguments being made, yet you make such arrogant posts, as if you have anything figured out. Your arrogance is utterly unwarranted, that's the difference between you and I.

---

qman said:

Mandating higher wages is like putting a Band-Aid on a gunshot wound.

I like market forces to dictate higher wages, not some government bureaucrat.

---

qman said:

The Ecstatic said:

Is it any surprise that corporate America wants to have its cake and eat it too?

---

Liberal CEO's and billionaires = Oxymoron.

---

ballsalsa said:

qman said:

Mandating higher wages is like putting a Band-Aid on a gunshot wound.

I like market forces to dictate higher wages, not some government bureaucrat.

---

Right, and given the realities of globalization of the workforce,  increased automation that shows no sign of slowing, and massive wealth consolidation leading us down the road to oligarchy, what market based solution do you prescribe?

---