Quick! Support an unconstitutional feelgood bill!

[Sibirsky]

I doubt Microsoft has janitorial staff. They probably outsource that like most businesses.

So, MCD lowest paid $7.25/hr x 2080 = $15,080 = CEO limit of $1,508,000
MSFT, some administrative assistant say $35,000 = $3,500,000 CEO limit.

The McD's CEO can make $3,500,000... he just needs to to pay his workers at least about $16.80 an hour.

And sell meals for that much too.

[Tekania]

The McD's CEO can make $3,500,000... he just needs to to pay his workers at least about $16.80 an hour.

And sell meals for that much too.

Well, then perhaps the McD's CEO shouldn't be making that much money then. It's not like he's going to have a massive difference in pay compared to competitive CEO's in his market, who are also constrained in their pay by the same factor in comparison to their lowest paid workers at barely minimum wage...

I mean, we're squabbling over whether a single asshole is making 1.5 million or 3.5 million a year, while countless thousands of his employees can barely put food on their tables at home.

[Ashas Favor]

And sell meals for that much too.

Well, then perhaps the McD's CEO shouldn't be making that much money then. It's not like he's going to have a massive difference in pay compared to competitive CEO's in his market, who are also constrained in their pay by the same factor in comparison to their lowest paid workers at barely minimum wage...

I mean, we're squabbling over whether a single asshole is making 1.5 million or 3.5 million a year, while countless thousands of his employees can barely put food on their tables at home.

I agree 150%

[Tahar Joblis]

I'm pretty sure it would take someone wiser and more knowledgeable in economics and a good many other areas than I to figure it out short of using brute force to accomplish it. I like to think I'm smart but there are things that are arcane to me and that is one of them.

Brute force is simple, and would work, but would create many problems for corporations in the lower paid fields. The most common approach I've seen is to limit CEO's pay to say 100x the lowest paid employee's pay. But that would create problems for McDonald's for example, compared to Microsoft. They wouldn't be able to get as good of talent for their CEO.

I'm going to call BS on that.

There are numerous studies that have been done on highly paid CEOs. They don't really seem to be indicating that highly paid "superstar" CEOs actually do a better job. E.g.,

Performance decline after winning awards and gaining compensation.
CEOs cause their own pay to increase, which causes the better lower-level managers to leave when they feel underpaid.

[Greed and Death]

And sell meals for that much too.

Well, then perhaps the McD's CEO shouldn't be making that much money then. It's not like he's going to have a massive difference in pay compared to competitive CEO's in his market, who are also constrained in their pay by the same factor in comparison to their lowest paid workers at barely minimum wage...

I mean, we're squabbling over whether a single asshole is making 1.5 million or 3.5 million a year, while countless thousands of his employees can barely put food on their tables at home.

It is really none of our business what a company chooses to pay its CEOs.

[Sibirsky]

And sell meals for that much too.

Well, then perhaps the McD's CEO shouldn't be making that much money then. It's not like he's going to have a massive difference in pay compared to competitive CEO's in his market, who are also constrained in their pay by the same factor in comparison to their lowest paid workers at barely minimum wage...

I mean, we're squabbling over whether a single asshole is making 1.5 million or 3.5 million a year, while countless thousands of his employees can barely put food on their tables at home.

You're putting the entire industry at a disadvantage. And his employees are kids, and don't have to worry about putting food on the table.

[Sibirsky]

Brute force is simple, and would work, but would create many problems for corporations in the lower paid fields. The most common approach I've seen is to limit CEO's pay to say 100x the lowest paid employee's pay. But that would create problems for McDonald's for example, compared to Microsoft. They wouldn't be able to get as good of talent for their CEO.

I'm going to call BS on that.

There are numerous studies that have been done on highly paid CEOs. They don't really seem to be indicating that highly paid "superstar" CEOs actually do a better job. E.g.,

Performance decline after winning awards and gaining compensation.
CEOs cause their own pay to increase, which causes the better lower-level managers to leave when they feel underpaid.

What BS? Ben and Jerry's tried a similar policy and ended it when they couldn't find a suitable CEO. Because that shit don't work.

[Sibirsky]

Well, then perhaps the McD's CEO shouldn't be making that much money then. It's not like he's going to have a massive difference in pay compared to competitive CEO's in his market, who are also constrained in their pay by the same factor in comparison to their lowest paid workers at barely minimum wage...

I mean, we're squabbling over whether a single asshole is making 1.5 million or 3.5 million a year, while countless thousands of his employees can barely put food on their tables at home.

It is really none of our business what a company chooses to pay its CEOs.

And this, is an even better argument that all the unintended consequences.

[Hellsgrind]

You're putting the entire industry at a disadvantage. And his employees are kids, and don't have to worry about putting food on the table.

what

[Sibirsky]

You're putting the entire industry at a disadvantage. And his employees are kids, and don't have to worry about putting food on the table.

what

Most people earning minimum wage are high school kids.

[Hellsgrind]

what

Most people earning minimum wage are high school kids.

http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.c ... um_10.html

23% of them are ages 16-19. I wouldn't even count ages 18 or 19 as 'kids', seeing as how alot of parents in America kick you out after you turn that age. This also isn't counting the 'emancipated' children. So I'd estimate it's only about 16-20% of 18- working as minimum wage.

26% of minimum-wage workers, however, are ages 20-24. So we have a larger portion of adults working for minimum wages as opposed to children.

Also, if you seriously think that most of the McDonald's workers are kids, I recommend you go and visit one.

*As an attache' to my original thesis, if you will look on the chart below the top, you will find that a larger portion of women are working minimum-wage as opposed to men in most of the younger categories. This is because a larger number of them are single female mothers who work to support their kids.

[Sibirsky]

Most people earning minimum wage are high school kids.

http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.c ... um_10.html

23% of them are ages 16-19. I wouldn't even count ages 18 or 19 as 'kids', seeing as how alot of parents in America kick you out after you turn that age. This also isn't counting the 'emancipated' children. So I'd estimate it's only about 16-20% of 18- working as minimum wage.

26% of minimum-wage workers, however, are ages 20-24. So we have a larger portion of adults working for minimum wages as opposed to children.

Also, if you seriously think that most of the McDonald's workers are kids, I recommend you go and visit one.

*As an attache' to my original thesis, if you will look on the chart below the top, you will find that a larger portion of women are working minimum-wage as opposed to men in most of the younger categories. This is because a larger number of them are single female mothers who work to support their kids.

And 20-24 year olds tend to be students. I've been to many McDonald's restaurants. Well aware of who works there, thanks. The number of people getting paid minimum wage is small, and it tends to be dominated by very young employees.

[Hellsgrind]

And 20-24 year olds tend to be students. I've been to many McDonald's restaurants. Well aware of who works there, thanks. The number of people getting paid minimum wage is small, and it tends to be dominated by very young employees.

So students don't have to worry about putting food on the table? Okay.

[Free United States]

*shrugs*, it's the fact that they're well paid is why I don't generally throw out much "support the troops!" mentality. They don't exactly have much in common with random guy at Valley Forge or Gettysburg these days.

E-1 is about 10-12K a year. They are given some allowances, like BAH and BAS (those two are based on where you're located). Enlisted also get an annual uniform allottment, and I believe officers get a one-time only.

[Sibirsky]

And 20-24 year olds tend to be students. I've been to many McDonald's restaurants. Well aware of who works there, thanks. The number of people getting paid minimum wage is small, and it tends to be dominated by very young employees.

So students don't have to worry about putting food on the table? Okay.

If they live on campus, sure. Most of them have meal plans at school, and don't have 4 mouths to feed like you make it seem.

Should we, instead try your approach and raise the minimum wage to $20/hr?

[Hellsgrind]

If they live on campus, sure. Most of them have meal plans at school, and don't have 4 mouths to feed like you make it seem.

And who is paying for their campus tuition? Which is extremely high at most American universities?

[Sibirsky]

If they live on campus, sure. Most of them have meal plans at school, and don't have 4 mouths to feed like you make it seem.

And who is paying for their campus tuition? Which is extremely high at most American universities?

Their parents, they borrow to pay for it, themselves, a grant or scholarship, or any combination thereof.

[Charleston Harbour]

Pass it through in under 10 hours! WE MUST ACT ON THIS VITAL ISSUE! (just like we did with the gov. shutdown)

[Myrensis]

The salary plus the food and housing plus the civilian discounts plus all the other benefits heaped onto them far exceeds what most people at their level of wages receives already; their wages are usually higher than what an average person of their age earns and are far superior to what the average soldier earned throughout history.

Well, I guess the simplest question to ask then would be, if we have it so good, why do you suppose people aren't lined up out the door to get the sweet deal we have?

Our pay and benefits aren't exactly a big secret.

[Free United States]

The salary plus the food and housing plus the civilian discounts plus all the other benefits heaped onto them far exceeds what most people at their level of wages receives already; their wages are usually higher than what an average person of their age earns and are far superior to what the average soldier earned throughout history.

Well, I guess the simplest question to ask then would be, if we have it so good, why do you suppose people aren't lined up out the door to get the sweet deal we have?

Our pay and benefits aren't exactly a big secret.

That's laughable. BAH and BAS pay the average of what is considered 'necessary' to live off of. The 'b' stands for 'basic' after all.

Officers in the past were given land and titles. I won't get that when I retire (unless I buy the land out of pocket).

And due to spending cuts, the military is actually finding itself needing to get rid of personnel. The Air Force alone is looking to reduce enlisted numbers by 8% and officers by 12%. There are also plenty of people my age making thousands more than what I will.

[Neo Arcad]

Yeah... here's the thing. My dad's currently attending the National War College, since he's in SOCOM and needs to make Brigadier, and apparently not only is he considered "nonessential" because he's off duty to attend, he's not getting paid, and he's not going to the War College to attend classes anymore either. It's this kind of stuff that this bill is made to cover. I mean, I'm going to go hungry if this bill or something like it isn't passed soon. Are you willing to do that to me, who has done nothing wrong and isn't even a government or military personnel, so you can satisfy some strange liberal urge to deprive the US military of funding?

[Free United States]

Yeah... here's the thing. My dad's currently attending the National War College, since he's in SOCOM and needs to make Brigadier, and apparently not only is he considered "nonessential" because he's off duty to attend, he's not getting paid, and he's not going to the War College to attend classes anymore either. It's this kind of stuff that this bill is made to cover. I mean, I'm going to go hungry if this bill or something like it isn't passed soon. Are you willing to do that to me, who has done nothing wrong and isn't even a government or military personnel, so you can satisfy some strange liberal urge to deprive the US military of funding?

Actually, it was the Republicans who proposed spending cuts on the military. President Obama has pushed through increase in military pay since his inauguration.

[Neo Arcad]

Yeah... here's the thing. My dad's currently attending the National War College, since he's in SOCOM and needs to make Brigadier, and apparently not only is he considered "nonessential" because he's off duty to attend, he's not getting paid, and he's not going to the War College to attend classes anymore either. It's this kind of stuff that this bill is made to cover. I mean, I'm going to go hungry if this bill or something like it isn't passed soon. Are you willing to do that to me, who has done nothing wrong and isn't even a government or military personnel, so you can satisfy some strange liberal urge to deprive the US military of funding?

Actually, it was the Republicans who proposed spending cuts on the military. President Obama has pushed through increase in military pay since his inauguration.

I'll believe he supports the military when he shows any real evidence that he knows they're more than just guys with guns. As the first civvie President, I really don't think he's in any way cut out to be CinC of the most powerful military in human history.
...
Cue the diehard British imperialists coming out of the woodwork to debate whether America's surpassed the Motherland or not. And all you Chinese and Soviet guys, don't even start with me.

[Free United States]

Actually, it was the Republicans who proposed spending cuts on the military. President Obama has pushed through increase in military pay since his inauguration.

I'll believe he supports the military when he shows any real evidence that he knows they're more than just guys with guns. As the first civvie President, I really don't think he's in any way cut out to be CinC of the most powerful military in human history.
...
Cue the diehard British imperialists coming out of the woodwork to debate whether America's surpassed the Motherland or not. And all you Chinese and Soviet guys, don't even start with me.

He's the first Civvie president? Please go back and slap your US history teacher, because he/she failed you. And that's your opinion about his competence to lead the military. Carter was also in the military and he didn't do well in Iran. Clinton wasn't in the military and had Rwanda and Bosnia under his belt.

"...the military would get a 1.4 percent pay increase next year..."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federa ... ivili.html

[Tahar Joblis]

What BS?

CEO pay is not only very high; but very variable. Increasing how much you pay for a CEO doesn't actually lead to improved corporate performance; in fact, it can even lead to a decline in corporate performance. Thus, the idea that spending more on a CEO will actually lead to a better CEO is, frankly, BS, as is the idea that you need to spend "superstar CEO" type salaries to get competent executive capabilities.

Ben and Jerry's tried a similar policy and ended it when they couldn't find a suitable CEO. Because that shit don't work.

Ben & Jerry's used to have a policy that no employee's rate of pay shall exceed seven times that of entry-level employees. In 1995, entry-level employees were paid $8 hourly, and the highest paid employee was President and Chief Operating Officer Chuck Lacey, who earned $150,000 annually. When Ben Cohen resigned as Chief Executive Officer and Ben & Jerry's announced the search for a new CEO in 1995, the company ended the seven-to-one-ratio policy.[27]

Seven times.

Whole Foods, in 2007, amidst great success, raised the cap to 19 times.

The cap discussed here was a whopping gargantuan 100 times. Huge, in other words, in comparison to the sort of caps that have been described as difficult.

Now, actually, given the studies I linked to above, it's not clear that it's even necessarily a good idea to hike pay of CEOs whose apparent performance is catching the public eye; that performance is likely to regress towards the mean anyway.