Income Inequality

Ric Flair said:
Most companies, esepcially larger and more complex companies, don’t work as co-ops. Even co-ops and employee-owned companies, have executives and managers that actually run things. 

I’m not arguing that workers don’t work hard. I’m pushing back against the idea that CEOs and executives don’t. And the time of the CEOs and executives is far far more valuable than that of the average worker.
Click to expand...
I know most companies aren't co-ops, I'm saying that co-ops are one solution, which we aren't currently making enough use of. And I didn't say executives and managers don't exist at co-ops.

I'm not saying CEO's and execs don't work hard, but rather that they don't work hundreds or thousands of times harder than the workers. And worker co-ops, some of which have CEO's and execs that are hired by the workers, show that "the time of the CEOs and executives" aren't necessarily "far far more valuable than that of the average worker".

 
Ric Flair said:
Labor is easily replaceable. Wages are dictated by supply and demand.
Click to expand...
CEO's, execs, and share holders are also easily replaceable. So what?

Wages aren't always dictated by supply and demand, look at unregulated markets with monopolies for an example. But even if they were, do we want a society that determines the basic dignity of our people to live and work based on what market forces do? Think about the times capitalism has collapsed (or any economic system for that matter) and the horrible effects on us.

 
RedDenver said:
I know most companies aren't co-ops, I'm saying that co-ops are one solution, which we aren't currently making enough use of. And I didn't say executives and managers don't exist at co-ops.

I'm not saying CEO's and execs don't work hard, but rather that they don't work hundreds or thousands of times harder than the workers. And worker co-ops, some of which have CEO's and execs that are hired by the workers, show that "the time of the CEOs and executives" aren't necessarily "far far more valuable than that of the average worker".
Click to expand...


CEO’s and executives have more education, experience, and training, and thus bring far far more value to a company than an average worker.  They’re also far harder to find, as people with that level of intelligence who are willing to work so hard, stay in school, accumulate the right combination of degrees and intelligence, etc. are in short supply. 

If the average worker has a problem with the wage disparity between himself and an executive who’s smarter, has worked harder, made better life choices, and adds far more value to the company, then that’s his own problem. The best way to fix that is for the disgruntled chap to go back to school and start making better life decisions.

 
RedDenver said:
CEO's, execs, and share holders are also easily replaceable. So what?

Wages aren't always dictated by supply and demand, look at unregulated markets with monopolies for an example. But even if they were, do we want a society that determines the basic dignity of our people to live and work based on what market forces do? Think about the times capitalism has collapsed (or any economic system for that matter) and the horrible effects on us.
Click to expand...


Which unregulated markets with monopolies are you referring to? Even in those types of situations, they have to compete for talent.

 
RedDenver said:
CEO's, execs, and share holders are also easily replaceable. So what?

Wages aren't always dictated by supply and demand, look at unregulated markets with monopolies for an example. But even if they were, do we want a society that determines the basic dignity of our people to live and work based on what market forces do? Think about the times capitalism has collapsed (or any economic system for that matter) and the horrible effects on us.
Click to expand...
I will just take this from my vantage point.  I have been a head coach and a position coach and a coordinator at different levels.

I sucked at being a HC and I really had no idea how freaking much went into it...not so much the coaching part but the organization, the emails, the calls, the meetings, the vendors, the parents, the players the staff.  It was a much greater responsibility than I ever imagined and I hated it...I was glad to leave it and move down to a lower level and just call the defense.  I show up to practice and leave when it is over.  The HC gets way more than I do and deserves every penny and is not really all that easily replaceable.  But I know that one of my asst coaches is super easy to replace, he never coached until 2 years ago and works from home...my other asst coach is a firemen and still says we should be running the 6-2 stack...the other assistant never played (not a big deal) and is working on his masters, one of the other ones just showed up the first day and is retired but he seems to really know what he is doing.

There are times when my HC is gone and I have to run practice...it is a cluster f#&%.  I am easy to replace but he is not.  My staff is easy to replace but the head guy is not.    

 
BigRedBuster said:
You are drastically over estimating the ease of replacing people like this.
Click to expand...
I totally agree.  I know there is this thought process that the "boss doesn't do anything" but 99 times out of 100, that just isn't true.

And also, there should be perks for being at the top and/or for seniority.  There is nothing wrong with that.

 
RedDenver said:
I provided 3 examples.

As for Denmark, every country goes through economic highs and lows, so if you want to claim it's the "non-producers" that are causing this low then you'll need evidence and a way to show it's not other confounding factors. Here's a look at their GDP performance with the drop in 2017 highlighted, which shows that they have some up and down like every economy:



However, their unempoyment rate is dropping and their projected growth over the next year is 2%, so it's not looking too bad.
Click to expand...
It would appear that part of the issue Denmark is experiencing is immigration and welfare.

"Shocking"

 
teachercd said:
I totally agree.  I know there is this thought process that the "boss doesn't do anything" but 99 times out of 100, that just isn't true.

And also, there should be perks for being at the top and/or for seniority.  There is nothing wrong with that.
Click to expand...


The reality is that most workers have no ideahow hard the boss worked to become the boss or how hard being the boss really is.

There’s a tremendous bias some blue collar workers have against people who sit behind desks and don’t get their hands dirty by doing “real work.” In reality, most managers and executives are the hardest working people in the building. The blue collar guys who complain about them just don’t understand the work they do.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ric Flair said:
The reality is that most workers have no ideahow hard the boss worked to become the boss or how hard being the boss really is.

There’s a tremendous bias some blue collar workers have against people who sit behind desks and don’t get their hands dirty by doing “real work.” In reality, most managers and executives are the hardest working people in the building. The blue collar guys who complain about them just don’t understand the work they do.
Click to expand...
I know what you mean.  I don't even think it is so much a blue collar thing.  I probably fall under white collar (even though right now I am wearing a 1/4 zip black collar UA shirt) but I have turned down two administrative positions because of some reasons with one of those reasons being that I just didn't feel like I knew how to do the job, at the time I just felt like I was clueless and not ready for that type of responsibility.  

 
I always find discussions on this board about this interesting.  

We have people who claim the CEO doesn't do much and their easy to replace.

Meanwhile, the HC of the Huskers is basically the CEO.  He's not out there making tackles, catching the ball or passing it?  He's the manager.  He is the head of the program that gives it the identity and the direction that a) better be a good direction and b) everyone had better follow and buy into.

Now.....do these same people who claim the CEO is easily replaced, not needed or doesn't do anything.....believe we really don't need Scott Frost or that he is easily replaced or that he doesn't really do anything?

Do those same people think we should have just gone out and gotten someone willing to be coach for a $150,000 salary?

Maybe the team should be ran like a CO-OP where the team votes on what ever they do.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
We were a proudly capitalist supply and demand system back when the CEO made 57 times more than the average worker.

The CEO now makes 270 times more than the average worker.

CEO compensation has increased by more than 930% since 1978. CEO pay has grown faster than the stock market or the wages of the top 0.1 percent.

This increase in compensation is even more staggering when you consider that the top 1% earned 87 times more than the bottom 50% of workers in 2016, up from a 27-to-1 ratio in 1980.

We tend to think of supply and demand being driven by a mass of consumers, but there's an increasingly closed loop system where it's driven by high-level stockholders, who benefit from actions that often hurt the average consumer. The average consumer may not register this sea change, and doesn't see themselves contributing to a system that is working against their self-interest.

So supply and demand may not be what it used to be. 

 
BigRedBuster said:
I always find discussions on this board about this interesting.  

We have people who claim the CEO doesn't do much and their easy to replace.

Meanwhile, the HC of the Huskers is basically the CEO.  He's not out there making tackles, catching the ball or passing it?  He's the manager.  He is the head of the program that gives it the identity and the direction that a) better be a good direction and b) everyone had better follow and buy into.

Now.....do these same people who claim the CEO is easily replaced, not needed or doesn't do anything.....believe we really don't need Scott Frost or that he is easily replaced or that he doesn't really do anything?

Do those same people think we should have just gone out and gotten someone willing to be coach for a $150,000 salary?

Maybe the team should be ran like a CO-OP where the team votes on what ever they do.
Click to expand...
As far as Income inequality, college football is a really good example. The players, who work their butts off get paid zero dollars , and the coaches get millions. Even worse the coach can fail in spectacular fashion, as Riley did and still collect more buyout money than most people will make their entire working life .I think frost will do great things here, but even if he fails Nebraska football will go on.  

If 150,000 was all a top football coach made, then yes someone would do it and do it well.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top