Researching the world of Warhammer proved to be somewhat similar to their deep dives into real world history. Creative Assembly open up about the latest Total War.
Talking Total War Warhammer II with Creative Assembly
The looming Darkness has not consumed Bungie at this point in time. Quite the contrary. Destiny 2 is the glorious self-rez fans have been praying for.
Out of Orbit - Our Full and Complete Destiny 2 Review
With the NES emulator naming of 'flog' it showcases the ability for the Switch to play NES games. But, it also raises the question of - why?
The Heart-Warming Story Behind the Switch's Hidden NES Golf Game
Having recently entered the Early Access stage of development, we go hands-on with the latest build of id Software's Quake Champions.
Fraggin' Good Times - Hands-On with Quake Champions
Capping CEO Pay
Zapo
Brisbane, Queensland
3131 posts
This needs to become a thing elsewhere.

Here’s an idea for how to end corporate greed and reverse the trend of growing income inequality worldwide: impose a new rule that would limit the pay of top executives to just 12 times that of the lowest-paid employees at the same firm. In other words, prevent CEOs from earning more in one month than the lowliest shop-floor worker earns in a year.


http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/11/15/swiss-outrage-over-executive-pay-sparks-a-movement-in-europe/
03:41pm 18/11/13 Permalink
system
Internet
--
03:41pm 18/11/13 Permalink
jmr
Brisbane, Queensland
8108 posts
Interesting concept, but... If you start a firm, and you're responsible for all of it's operations and all of it's staff then I think it is more than feasible that you're worth more than 12 times the lowest paid employee.
03:54pm 18/11/13 Permalink
copuis
Brisbane, Queensland
4532 posts
great idea, sadly US systems are becoming to much the norm

also, how would you police bonuses, and other packages and perks? (

(also, i'm guessing that is 12x the lowest full time worker)

I agree that it is becoming an issue, hell qantas is forcing workers on old (more costly) awards upto qld or risk losing their jobs, (they are not paid all that much) while alan joyce takes home 5million a year.

the other great idea I heard years ago was limiting pay rises of CEO's to the no more (as a percentage) than the growth of the company over the last three years they had been in, meaning that in effect a CEO would have a wage freeze, and only be eligible for an increase if the business grew (it was also tied into share packages too, so if the business firmed up in a market, (not growing, but becoming more valuable there was also a reward)
03:56pm 18/11/13 Permalink
Mosfx
Gold Coast, Queensland
1603 posts
No way CEOs work hard for their money, the only time this should be policed is if the company isn't performing and staff and consumers are at a risk of being left in the dark.
04:15pm 18/11/13 Permalink
groganus
Brisbane, Queensland
2743 posts
This type of rule isn't to reduce CEO's incomes but rather increase each employee's income based on the success of the company.

If the company perform wells and the CEO gets a bump, everyone gets a bump.

I don't agree with this idea personally, A higher position and wage is not necessarily meant to reflect how hard someone works but there level of responsibility, risk and accountability.

I like to see smart people who take risk and are accountable of the outcome of those risk to be rewarded or punished depending on that outcome.

I'd rather see CEO's whose decision cause harm to staff, the economy, share holders or the public, be dealt with more strictly then every CEO's incomes capped.
04:24pm 18/11/13 Permalink
redhat
Sydney, New South Wales
1137 posts
Interesting experiment if they vote it in.

1:12 is pretty low though. They should compensate it with stock or something so at least their rewarded when the company they're in charge of does well.
04:25pm 18/11/13 Permalink
Zapo
Brisbane, Queensland
3132 posts
I think x12 is a fair number, and perhaps you could have an upper cap, so say, your base wage cannot be higher than x12 the lowest income in your company. That could be on top of performance bonuses around growth within the market, but that could be capped at an additional rate.

Either way I think it's a great message, it should hopefully distribute the wealth a bit more evenly.
04:35pm 18/11/13 Permalink
Ickus
Perth, Western Australia
375 posts
I think it needs to be a mix of both limiting managerial salaries and also accountability for company direction/performance.

x12 is too low a value and also possibly the wrong metric, assuming you have someone on minimum wage (~$32K) it would limit you to ~$388K which in a company which has revenue in the billions is too small.

It should be for everyone, otherwise you will have have rich bastards with different titles.

I also don't think the board/managers should control their own salary in any direct or indirect fashion ( should also be applied to politicians).
04:37pm 18/11/13 Permalink
Zapo
Brisbane, Queensland
3134 posts
x12 is too low a value and also possibly the wrong metric, assuming you have someone on minimum wage (~$32K) it would limit you to ~$388K which in a company which has revenue in the billions is too small.


Perhaps you'll find that person on $32k is no longer getting $32k , and instead the minimum wage being paid in that company is $45k. Wouldn't that be awesome!
04:42pm 18/11/13 Permalink
deadlyf
Queensland
3350 posts
I'd rather see CEO's whose decision cause harm to staff, the economy, share holders or the public, be dealt with more strictly then every CEO's incomes capped.
The results of the GFC point to this being even more unlikely to happen. There seems to be little to no accountability at all for CEO's.

The few CEO's that do get fired still get massive severance packages, not to mention that they still have their luxury house and yacht along with their Cayman Islands account to fall back on. Meanwhile the retirees that have their life savings invested in the company now have nothing.
04:46pm 18/11/13 Permalink
greazy
Brisbane, Queensland
6128 posts
I think singling out CEOs is silly. There's a whole board of directors that get paid lots too.
05:22pm 18/11/13 Permalink
Tollaz0r!
Brisbane, Queensland
14667 posts

This type of rule isn't to reduce CEO's incomes but rather increase each employee's income based on the success of the company.


Nahh it would just mean that a large portion of Director money would not be in wages but instead through company options/shares and other forms of payment.

05:24pm 18/11/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
20773 posts
why not just make it that everyone gets paid the same.
05:32pm 18/11/13 Permalink
carson
Melbourne, Victoria
2164 posts
why not just make it that everyone gets paid the same.

That's some fine logic right there.
05:34pm 18/11/13 Permalink
fpot
Gold Coast, Queensland
23640 posts
why not just make it that everyone gets paid the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
05:35pm 18/11/13 Permalink
Ickus
Perth, Western Australia
376 posts
why not just make it that everyone gets paid the same.


Да товарищ
05:38pm 18/11/13 Permalink
ph33x
Thailand
684 posts
Да товарищ

ຂໍໂທດນໍາ, ຂະແມ? ຂ້າພະເຈົ້າບໍ່ໄດ້ຈັບທ່ານມີ ..
05:47pm 18/11/13 Permalink
BroolStoryCo
Melbourne, Victoria
610 posts
Socialists unite!!!

I simply can't understand for the life of me why the general public like to pretend that companies are some sort of charity or government type institution where they can dictate how much a company earns and how much a company pays it's employees just because they don't like how much they are being paid?

So what if a company pays it's CEO $50 million a year? The company has earnt that money(With the CEO at the helm making the decisions) and can do whatever it likes with that money and it's up to the owners (the shareholders) to decide what it does with the money and who gets paid what, not some unemployed inner city socialist hipster who is angry he isn't rich.

It would be equivalent of Bob the local fish and chip shop owner working his ass off to make his business successful and making $1 million dollars for the year only to have some socialist hipster walk in off the street and say "oh hey bob, you earn too much, lets put a cap on what you earn because i am currently on the dole and dont earn much, so it isnt fair"

No one has a right to dictate what companies earn and how much the directors/CEO's/management are paid except the owners.

Either way I think it's a great message, it should hopefully distribute the wealth a bit more evenly.


Yep classic socialist redistribution of wealth. You don't have to earn it, you'll just simply be given it!
05:48pm 18/11/13 Permalink
IVY_MiKe
Canberra, Australian Capital Territory
1705 posts
I like to see smart people who take risk and are accountable of the outcome of those risk to be rewarded or punished depending on that outcome.


This rapidly becomes a matter of perspective. What one CEO does may greatly benefit the people who determine his pay packet, perhaps even company, at this point it might f*** over the greater community in which that company is involved....


On:
12 times that of the lowest-paid employees at the same firm

anyone want to outsource their 'lower end' work to Foxconn too then?
05:53pm 18/11/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
20774 posts
I have so many ideas about what to do with other people's money. I have no money.
05:53pm 18/11/13 Permalink
fpot
Gold Coast, Queensland
23642 posts
I have so many ideas about what to do with other people's money. I have no money.
I don't get it. This sounds like something you'd be strongly against and actually know about, yet all you can manage are one line logical fallacy s***-posts.

edit: I'll be honest with you. It sounds like a bad idea at face value to me as well. The government telling people the limits on what they can earn sounds extreme to me. I could really go either way - it depends on who had the better argument. I know you don't care what anyone thinks, but surely you must have some interest in defending your ideological position. It just makes you look as dumb as s*** when something comes up which addresses your specific areas of interest and you make posts I'd expect a high-schooler would make.
05:55pm 18/11/13 Permalink
baz
Victoria
261 posts
Fpot: there is still no limit on what CEO's can earn with this idea.

Nice topic Zapo.

CEO's make decisions like "we need to increase profits" what happens after that?


Ill leave this here.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/best-companies/
06:09pm 18/11/13 Permalink
Superform
Netherlands
7869 posts
i think a distinction needs to be made between ceo who are appointed and self made ceo

there is no way i'm going to slog my way through the start up phase of a company to have some mug tell me what i can earn.
06:11pm 18/11/13 Permalink
RuleofBooKz
Melbourne, Victoria
523 posts
The government telling people the limits on what they can earn sounds extreme to me.


you mean like minimum wage?

I like the idea of setting max wage to a factor of min wage. But the corporate snakes will find ways to slither around any legislation so it wont work as intended - they already do it with tax.
06:16pm 18/11/13 Permalink
Zapo
Brisbane, Queensland
3135 posts
Just because people will find a way around the intention of the law, doesn't mean it shouldn't be implemented. Otherwise we wouldn't have implemented income tax, well, and pretty much everything else to do with wealth.

The problem, at least as it's seen is that Execs wages are absurd. The article quoted 1:6 in 1984 to 1:43 today, obviously in the US it's worse at 1:231 in larger companies. That is absurd, and when you watch other videos etc about income distribution int he US (happy to link if people are keen) it just makes you wonder wow, why aren't we trying to do something. These guys are.

According to the institute, CEO compensation grew by more than 725 percent between 1978 and 2011, at a time when the annual compensation of a typical private-sector worker grew by just 5.7 percent.


How can anyone look at that and say, sheesh, the situation is right.
06:38pm 18/11/13 Permalink
Captain Lateral
Brisbane, Queensland
4723 posts
"oh hey bob, you earn too much, lets put a cap on what you earn because i am currently on the dole and dont earn much, so it isnt fair"


How is someone on the dole at all relevant to the minimum wage of their employees?

It would be equivalent of Bob the local fish and chip shop owner working his ass off to make his business successful and making $1 million dollars for the year


this sort of law wouldn't affect a fish and chip shop. seriously, a fish and chip shop owner would be lucky to have a turnover of $300k a year, owners for small stores like this normally make $10k - $30k a year, or if self managed, $40 - $90k a year. (as it would include their own wage). The only way to get that sort of wage would be to have a massive chain of shops.

That doesn't seem like a bad thing to me, reducing the incentive for any individual to acquire large market share in a single industry due to downward pressure allows smaller players to gain footholds.

It would be very good in those particular circumstances.

However, Considering most CEO's are also shareholders, and most CEO's don't earn their massive pay packets from their wage, but from their stock, this would pretty much just limit owner operator expansion, while doing nothing to address much larger corporation greed.

Much better to just put higher taxes on the big income earners, also closing the significant amount of tax loopholes the wealthy have access to would go a long way.
06:58pm 18/11/13 Permalink
copuis
Brisbane, Queensland
4533 posts
when in the US you can get employees (full time that work 50+hr work weeks) are earning 1:251th of the wage the CEO earns there is something wrong

the only other downside to going down a 12:1 pay rate, you will see a heap more outsourcing inorder to meet the pay ratio's
07:00pm 18/11/13 Permalink
Nukleuz
Perth, Western Australia
393 posts
why not just make it that everyone gets paid the same.

I have so many ideas about what to do with other people's money. I have no money.


Strangest thing I've ever heard from a LNP sympathiser... you sure you aren't a closet Labor supporter after all?
07:04pm 18/11/13 Permalink
Tollaz0r!
Brisbane, Queensland
14671 posts


CEO's make decisions like "we need to increase profits" what happens after that?


If you followed companies listed on the ASX you would see that Directors have a huge impact on the performance of a company. They say, "We need to increase profits, and this is how".

Seriously, people invest in companies sometimes based solely on the CEO and other directors. You think Steve Jobs was just a face?

Also Infi's post are heavily sarcastic. To spell it out for you his comment about spend other peoples money, having no money means:

People who have no large sums of money, seem to know all about spending large sums of money, yet don't have the capacity to earn large sums of money, so probably, in the end, don't really know how to spend large sums of money.

last edited by Tollaz0r! at 19:09:25 18/Nov/13
07:07pm 18/11/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
20775 posts
the minimum wage just creates unemployment. what happens to the person who is only worth $11/hour and their minimum wage is $12 an hour. the worker gets $0 per hour and goes on unemployment benefits. that is why youth unemployment is so high in australia and why the retail and hospitality sectors are f***ed (not to mention manufacturing).

just as a maximum CEO wage means Australian companies will get the cream of the crap. if the lowest paid worker makes say $45k then that means the CEO makes $540k!? The whole notion is laughable.

socialists are sickened by people earning what they are capable of. they either have to limit it or tax the f*** out of it. socialists dogoders are full of good ideas about how to control and limit other people's money, they should focus their energies on developing products and services customers want, thus growing the economy of their country and all people will in turn benefit. envy is one of the seven deadly sins.

socialism didn't turn china into a booming economy, they saw hong kong and wanted a piece of it too.

the most ironic part of it is that socialism seems to thrive in economies that are already "made". it's simply a misplaced guilty conscience with terrible unintended consequences.

similarly, refugees and migrants are only a problem because the host country then has to give them all these benefits paid for by the poor workers. refugees and migrants were not a problem for first world countries pre-socialism when it had no welfare because everyone got the same - zilch. back then, if you wanted to take a leaky boat across the world in pursuit of happiness and wealth? best of luck to you.

migrants didn't come to america for the benefits, they came to make their fortune. now refugees come to australia for the freebies. what a sick and counter-intuitive system that has evolved. our governments have developed programs to incentivise non-work!

should we put a limit on share prices?

should we put a limit on mobile phone prices?

every time an arbitrary limit by some d******* in Canberra they are creating

a) a market distortion and
b) an opportunity for evasion and black markets.

WAY TO GO.
07:08pm 18/11/13 Permalink
trog
AGN Admin
Brisbane, Queensland
37554 posts
One of the (rare?) things I agree with infi on - in the broad strokes, anyway.

Capping CEO pay should be something the shareholders do.
07:10pm 18/11/13 Permalink
Jim
UK
13378 posts
I don't get it. This sounds like something you'd be strongly against and actually know about, yet all you can manage are one line logical fallacy s***-posts.edit: I'll be honest with you. It sounds like a bad idea at face value to me as well. The government telling people the limits on what they can earn sounds extreme to me. I could really go either way - it depends on who had the better argument. I know you don't care what anyone thinks, but surely you must have some interest in defending your ideological position. It just makes you look as dumb as s*** when something comes up which addresses your specific areas of interest and you make posts I'd expect a high-schooler would make.


tbh I can't say I blame him, it's not like the principle of this idea hasn't been done to death on this forum alone already. sometimes when these tired topics come up it's kind of like:


imo the biggest failing of democracy and freemarket system is the common punter's complacency. you. me. that guy there. most of us go about our week doing very little to try and effect change, and in fact support the exploitation of the system by those fewer people who are more driven
07:33pm 18/11/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
20776 posts
hey jim you should go out for coffee with russell brand, he thinks they system is f***ed you know. brilliant guy.

oh hang on you cant go out to coffee with russell brand - he's a millionaire actor.
07:35pm 18/11/13 Permalink
copuis
Brisbane, Queensland
4534 posts
Infi, I always thought the idea behind a minimum wage was so that people doing work worth $45ph aren't employed doing work at $20ph, while the earns big bucks


one of the reasons I understand to the high un-employment rate is the quality of jobs are lower than some people are willing to work for, or they have work, and had been unable to convert this to full time, so in order to get a better lifestyle they are on the dole, actively seeking work, while doing under the table work or something

as for share holders capping the wages, this only works if the business has a broad, informed share holder base, but there are so many that are now are owned by investment companies, and if they don't vote, half the time the vote just reverts to a board member proxy
07:38pm 18/11/13 Permalink
Zapo
Brisbane, Queensland
3136 posts
Infi, if you're going to make the assumption that all socialists are unpaid jealous hippies then I'm going to make the assumption that all capitalists are greedy f**** out for no one but themselves.

If you work a full time wage you should not be living in poverty. You should be able to afford to send your kids to school, have some form of accommodation and buy the essentials of life.

The rift between rich and everyone else is growing. There's little recourse for people or businesses who f***ed the economy during the GFC. There's billions of loop holes to pay little or no tax. I'm not sure I agree totally with the whole CEO capped wage thing, but I certainly believe there needs to be action taken against the ever growing rift between the wealthy and everyone else.

Also, Russell Brand is right...if things don't change and keep going the way they are going there is going to be a f*****g revolution I can tell you that now. it's happened before, it'll happen again.
07:39pm 18/11/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
20777 posts
If you work a full time wage you should not be living in poverty.


you can thank your friendly government for that: regulation in virtually every aspect of our lives has driven up the cost of living to make middle class workers feel poor! this is especially relevant regarding housing prices. but don't worry government has all sorts of rebates and government assistance program to help you from the tax you just paid them.

however for some reason the herd seems to take comfort in this regulation. i guess the best solution is to pass more regulations and to punish businesses a bit more. those business guys have it so easy.

Infi, I always thought the idea behind a minimum wage was so that people doing work worth $45ph aren't employed doing work at $20ph, while the earns big bucks


1. the market tells you how much an iphone is worth so why should a bureaucrat in canberra tell you how much an hour of labour should be worth?

2. my first job out of uni was on a s***** rate.. then i learned some stuff, asked my boss for a payrise, he said no so i got another job. that is the way it goes. if employers dont meet the market, workers go elsewhere.

(of course unless you are an employer - its the opposite, there is another brilliant regulation that makes it virtually impossible to dismiss a s*** employee and even if you follow the rules, days of your time and thousands of your dollars can get tied up in tribunal proceedings before another canberra bureaucrat to tell you whether you have been good or bad. aren't we so lucky to have so many commissars helping us to run our businesses?)
07:44pm 18/11/13 Permalink
Jim
UK
13379 posts
hey jim you should go out for coffee with russell brand, he thinks they system is f***ed you know. brilliant guy.oh hang on you cant go out to coffee with russell brand - he's a millionaire actor.


dunno if it's because I'm glazed up on painkillers but I can't even tell if you're winding me up

anyway I don't think the system is f***ed, I think it's probably the most workable system, but too many people just accept their lot and let themselves get screwed too much within it
07:47pm 18/11/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
20778 posts
if things don't change and keep going the way they are going there is going to be a f*****g revolution I can tell you that now.


I think the only thing that could possibly cause a revolution in Australia is if beer or Foxtel got too expensive. or if they moved the footy finals.
07:51pm 18/11/13 Permalink
DoCZero
Other International
243 posts
i think a distinction needs to be made between ceo who are appointed and self made ceo

there is no way i'm going to slog my way through the start up phase of a company to have some mug tell me what i can earn.



Totally agree with this! Now lets look at the CEO in terms of a start up. Often the entrepreneur hits the limits of his abilities with designing the product / offering - taking the company from infancy to something starting to make money. The entrepreneur then realizes: "hey , I need to systemise this business, I need to put in place correct marketing, I need to get lean mean and all the rest" - but this person is often not equipped to do this. Enter the HIRED CEO.

Now what the media see's - this CEO earned 5Mill last year. What really happened - the CEO was given a fair salary of $150k and a variable salary based on performance. If the company profitability soared - the CEO's wage does also. If the profitability falls - often so does the CEO (replaced).

The worker on the shop floor does not has the 1-2 term risk of replacement like the CEO does. Also the worker on the shop floor did not chase the study or experience needed to successfully grow a business. I do not have a problem with the worker - I have a problem with the socialist tall poppy syndrome. If a CEO can successfully direct a business towards greater profits ALL benefit.

The shop-floor worker gains better security and perhaps additional bonus at the end of the year. Workplace environment improves and safety improves due to re-investment in the firm, workload improves due to the funds to hire more employees, and equipment / processes improve. The CEO gets paid more because he has successfully implement the plans and the system to do this. The Entrepreneur 's pay also soars because he made the decision to get some real help for his business.

Now think like this - if YOU took a company from 5mill profit to 30mil profit in 3 years (i.e you laid out and implemented a company wide plan), how much of that profit do you think you deserve? Put this on the scale of large companies / banks.
08:05pm 18/11/13 Permalink
Everlong
70 posts
Yeh sorta goes against the idea of capitalism, but CEO salaries are getting to the point of unsustainability so surely these CEOs would of expected a backlash eventually.
08:05pm 18/11/13 Permalink
Ickus
Perth, Western Australia
377 posts
Capping CEO pay should be something the shareholders do.


If only this were true... might actually make AGMs worth paying attention to.
08:28pm 18/11/13 Permalink
DoCZero
Other International
245 posts
Capping CEO pay should be something the shareholders do..


A smart investor would say UNCAPPED CEO pay - base it on % of profit! If the CEO can bring in a huge return, they deserve the chance at high returns.

If someone capped your pay - when would you stop work? When you hit the target right!
08:32pm 18/11/13 Permalink
RuleofBooKz
Melbourne, Victoria
524 posts
the whole CEO capped wage thing


you guys are missing the whole point. There is no "cap" on the CEO wage. What do i mean by that? If the CEO wants to raise their own wage all they have to do is raise the min wage of the guy at the bottom. They can do this when ever they want to and because the CEO wage is 12x that of the min wage there is no "cap" - just raise the min wage and boom CEO wage increase.

Also infi is a walking talking robot of the Libs. You cant take him seriously. Its safe to say you could just ignore his posts and go straight to the Lib HQ website and get the info direct - cut out the middle man. It would be faster.

The thing about the Libs, the diehard fully indoctrinated ones, is that they do not have a sense of empathy or compassion for others. They really do believe that you are the money you have in the bank and what you own. That is the only way they make the measure of a man. If you are rich you get a say if you are poor we dont want to hear from you. IF you are starving in the street it is your own fault if you are homeless its the same. No compassion.

I learnt a long time ago what the Libs supporter was all about. Long ago on a different forum we were talking welfare and min wage. I put up the same argument that people who work need to be able to have a lifestyle above the poverty line and people who cant work for what ever reason should be supported with at least a basic lifestyle.

The Lib response, of course was: nah welfare is bad and so is min wage. So i said: But being below the poverty line and without support means people will be at risk. Do you really want Aust to be like India or one of those countries where people literally starve to death in from of others? You know what the Lib supporter said? Yes im fine with people in Aust starving to death just so long as it doesn't happen on my street.

I had nothing to say to that mindset. You think "it couldn't happen in australia or that we wouldn't let it happen in australia". But take a long hard look at those guys who follow the Liberals because they are fine with it happening in australia "just so long as it isn't on their street".
08:33pm 18/11/13 Permalink
fpot
Gold Coast, Queensland
23643 posts
Capping CEO pay should be something the shareholders do
If I had a bunch of shares in a company and I heard that they were proposing to give the CEO a massive pay cut so that the companies lowest-to-mid paid employees got a massive pay increase I'd be all for it. Doesn't that have the potential to drive morale sky-high? Of course, perhaps the CEO would quit, and all of a sudden they have to attract someone new to the job at a massively reduced rate. How do CEO talent pools work? Is it kind of like sport where there are a small bunch of massively talented individuals (like the Tendulkars or Warnes in the world of cricket) or is it pretty much anyone with the right amount of education and experience would be capable of getting the job done?
08:35pm 18/11/13 Permalink
DoCZero
Other International
246 posts
you guys are missing the whole point. There is no "cap" on the CEO wage. What do i mean by that? If the CEO wants to raise their own wage all they have to do is raise the min wage of the guy at the bottom.


True - the issue of that idea is that suddenly you have people in one company (working as a janitor) getting paid $90 / hour, other companies janitors getting paid $5 per hour - does that make this system fair now? Employment is a deal between an employee and an employer - in which if the bottom does not like what they are paid, they can vote with their feet and find new employment. Damn earning 5 bucks an hour is too low... BOOHOO don't cry about it, do something about it.

Hell you can earn 25 bucks an hour mowing lawns. Go grab a mower and beat that minimum wage. (or maybe grab some books and change your options)

or if you think a company pays its staff too low - well Vote with your dollars, and dont shop there!
08:36pm 18/11/13 Permalink
Nerf Stormborn
Brisbane, Queensland
8112 posts
Don't a few fabulously rich people already only pay themselves a one dollar salary and get their payment some other way? Doesn't sound like it would work.
08:39pm 18/11/13 Permalink
copuis
Brisbane, Queensland
4535 posts
What crap - a smart investor would say UNCAPPED CEO pay - base it on % of profit! If the CEO can bring in a huge return, they deserve the chance at high returns.If someone capped your pay - when would you stop work? When you hit the target right!


yeah, profit isn't the only measure of performance, there is share price, forecasting, and many other factors

also, it wouldn't be fair for one ceo to build all the ground work with investment, and growth, while not making a profit in 5 years, only to be ousted and have the new CEO reap the rewards from his ground work
08:52pm 18/11/13 Permalink
baz
Victoria
262 posts
The thought of paying some lowlife janitor more money just repulses me and I refuse to entertain the thought, Id rather jump off a building.

Seems the divide between rich and poor is the yardstick for achievement.
08:56pm 18/11/13 Permalink
Nerf Stormborn
Brisbane, Queensland
8113 posts
Seems the divide between rich and poor is the yardstick for achievement.

Or the socioeconomic status of the family you were born into, in many cases.
09:04pm 18/11/13 Permalink
FaceMan
Brisbane, Queensland
10817 posts
Im not concerned about how much a CEO makes.
If it bothered me Id prolly try to become one the same way they did.

Im more concerned with how many hours a week I have to work to give money to the Government to piss up against the wall.

The quickest way to increase wages is to lower Taxes and get Government out of our lives.
Smaller Government + Lower Taxes = Higher wages

but no, the solution is to punish success ?
I wonder what happens to Society when success is punished so hard that people give up trying ?

09:10pm 18/11/13 Permalink
Captain Lateral
Brisbane, Queensland
4726 posts
The worker on the shop floor does not has the 1-2 term risk of replacement like the CEO does.
yeah, because redundancies never happen.


Also the worker on the shop floor did not chase the study or experience needed to successfully grow a business.
No, they've chased the study or experience to be able to provide the service or product that the company sells on their behalf, while taking massive profits.

if YOU took a company from 5mill profit to 30mil profit in 3 years (i.e you laid out and implemented a company wide plan), how much of that profit do you think you deserve?
you mean all by himself? do the people that actually do the legwork not count for some reason? after all, they're just robots and certainly don't have valuable skill that can be used to generate profit?


the market tells you how much an iphone is worth so why should a bureaucrat in canberra tell you how much an hour of labour should be worth?
Infi, are you comparing some-ones ability to feed themselves as an equivalent to owning a smart phone?

socialism didn't turn china into a booming economy
Maybe not, but Russia did beat America to space. so its not entirely without merit.
09:12pm 18/11/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
20779 posts
Infi, are you comparing some-ones ability to feed themselves as an equivalent to owning a smart phone?


The market has done a fine job of feeding people since the dawn of civilization. The world has more than enough food every person. Inability to obtain food is purely due to governments: corrupts governments, government tarrifs, wars. Don't blame the employer, the employer is the job CREATOR. Government is the job destroyer.

If on the other hand you are talking about ensuring enough for people to have "nice things" then yes that is also the market's job. It's called aspiration. If that has failed then government provides a safety net - an ever expanding safety net - of welfare programs. Latch onto one of those tits.

Regulation of wages achieves one thing only - unemployment. Regulation of wages only ensure people become dependent on the State and hurts those starting out or trying to get back into the employment market - the minimum wages tells people there are certain deals it is illegal to make - illegal! between free people.

In relation to CEO wages, regulation ensures Australian companies will only attract CEOs willing to work for the nominated rate. It is the inverse to the minimum wage.

Maybe not, but Russia did beat America to space. so its not entirely without merit.


yeah that worked out great.

The best regulations government can make to HELP the economy are ones ensuring transparency. Let the capital holders decides what is fair. And for the record, current Australian law requires that if 30% or more of shareholders vote down a remuneration report 2 years in a row, then the whole Board is required to be automatically up for re-election.

What is so evil about letting people choose what to do with their own money? Why the obsession of making laws restricting people's freedom of property rights? Let people pursue happiness and freedom in an environment of mutual agreement.
09:28pm 18/11/13 Permalink
trog
AGN Admin
Brisbane, Queensland
37555 posts
A smart investor would say UNCAPPED CEO pay - base it on % of profit! If the CEO can bring in a huge return, they deserve the chance at high returns.
That sounds reasonable, but again, it should be up to the shareholders to demand that (... note I am assuming a publicly listed company here, which is where most of this debate seems to take place).
If someone capped your pay - when would you stop work? When you hit the target right!
Almost everyone in the world works for a capped pay, right?
09:38pm 18/11/13 Permalink
Nerf Stormborn
Brisbane, Queensland
5347 posts
This post has been removed.
Reason: Off-Topic
Send Private Message
09:41pm 18/11/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
10780 posts
This post has been removed.
Reason: Off-Topic
Send Private Message
09:45pm 18/11/13 Permalink
Nerf Stormborn
Brisbane, Queensland
5348 posts
This post has been removed.
Reason: Off-Topic
Send Private Message
09:53pm 18/11/13 Permalink
Zapo
Brisbane, Queensland
3137 posts
I'm not that naive to suggest that capitalism and greed hasn't helped innovation and advancement astronomically. I also think it's pretty f*****g depressing to believe that the way things are at the moment from a social/economic perspective is as good as it's going to get.

Can you look at the distribution of wealth in countries like the US and SERIOUSLY suggest that it's a good thing? If you can then I'm just...gobsmacked.

One of the reason that we have things the way they are at the moment is strongly because of exploitation of cheap labour, what happens when that is no longer an option? We don't have slaves in Australia or the US anymore, but we have what basically equates to slave labour elsewhere, to give us our $5 T-Shirts and our cheap electronics. Is it fine to continue to exploit others for our material gain?
10:00pm 18/11/13 Permalink
RuleofBooKz
Melbourne, Victoria
450 posts
This post has been removed.
Reason: abusive / banned
Send Private Message
10:02pm 18/11/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
20781 posts
i like how infi wants "freedom" to screw over others.


how is forcing an employer to pay a worker more than they want to pay a fair thing? name one other scenario (aside from taxation which is government enforced by threat of imprisonment) in all of our society where one free party is forced to pay more than they want to. what else can the employer do if they don't want to pay the minimum rate? they go without.

competition abounds everywhere in our society but minimum rates are a sacred cow. it is nonsensical.

employers are not a welfare outlet, once again that is the government's role.

a fascist


a fascist uses the government to impose totalitarian policies on other. DERP

They work 50 hours a week and still live below the poverty line?


plenty of contractors that do it. plenty of farmers who are basically broke. what's the difference?
10:08pm 18/11/13 Permalink
loutl
Brisbane, Queensland
323 posts
I like how RuleofBookz makes up any old bulls*** and claims that's what infi is saying.
10:13pm 18/11/13 Permalink
Captain Lateral
Brisbane, Queensland
4727 posts
The market has done a fine job of feeding people since the dawn of civilization.
only if you consider mass starvation due to environmental factors a "fine job", its not all the governments fault. Even america heavily regulates the food industry.


Regulation of wages achieves one thing only - unemployment.
and increases in GDP. 3 people will spend more money in more important sectors than 1 person with 3x the wealth.

Latch onto one of those tits.
yeah, because people just love being stagnant and never try and get more. why would someone who has their life supported ever try and earn more money? this applies to the rich and the poor.

Let the capital holders decides what is fair.
that sounds like an excellent idea. I think that is the model they were using in parts of Africa. seems to be working out great for them!
10:14pm 18/11/13 Permalink
RuleofBooKz
Melbourne, Victoria
528 posts
without min wage the bulk of people would never earn enough to be taxed (they would fall below the threshold)

so the gov has a vested interest.

But that said the way of life in aust is very high. prob one of the best in the world. thats because a fair day work = a fair days pay. u cant let employers set what is fair for obvious reasons.

But we all enjoy the aust way of life. we dont have a few well off gated communities a few so so area's and then the bulk of the country are poverty stricken ghettos - like Brazil. No in Aust we have big cities full of suburbs that are nice. thats min wage. thats fair pay for a fair days work in action. Parks, clean streets play grounds, nature reserves libraries art centers etc all because we have a big workforce getting payed ok and paying tax.

i just dont see the issue with a CEO wanting a certain amount of money for their wage that they therefore have to ensure that those whom they have responsibility over also get a fair cut of the profit ie. 12x what is the company min wage. If the CEO wants more cash then raise the min wage obviously the corp can afford to give the little guy a sweeter deal if the CEO can ask for a sweeter deal?
10:18pm 18/11/13 Permalink
Captain Lateral
Brisbane, Queensland
4728 posts
name one other scenario
name 1 scenario! the government is not forcing the company to hire and expand. they're doing so out of self interest.
10:18pm 18/11/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
20782 posts
I think that is the model they were using in parts of Africa.


Africa is run by warlords and corrupt governments. What is your point?
10:23pm 18/11/13 Permalink
Captain Lateral
Brisbane, Queensland
4729 posts
employers are not a welfare outlet, once again that is the government's role.
I thought you were against government welfare? someone has got to feed the plebs otherwise they revolt and ruin your productive environment. and without your productive environment, that would just make you one of us.

Africa is run by warlords and corrupt governments. What is your point?
And they're that way because?

They're the rich ones making the rules. Without a middle class with strong buying power there is no incentive to be reasonable.

last edited by Captain Lateral at 22:26:14 18/Nov/13

Sorry, double edit.

last edited by Captain Lateral at 22:28:27 18/Nov/13
10:24pm 18/11/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
20783 posts
I thought you were against government welfare?


No, I am against an expansive welfare system, where ever year the number of recipients increases and taxpayers decreases.
10:26pm 18/11/13 Permalink
RuleofBooKz
Melbourne, Victoria
529 posts
lets see a warlord vs a corp

Of course that corp that you say is best would have no regulations or government control. A corp that can set their own agenda. treat people and the environment how ever they choose in the effort to turn increased profits. Pay what they choose do what they choose and enforce their activities using a private security force. No limits.

Nope i dont really see any difference to that theoretical corp and a warlord with a private army?
10:30pm 18/11/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
20784 posts
One uses guns and one deals in private mutual consent of free willing parties.
10:30pm 18/11/13 Permalink
RuleofBooKz
Melbourne, Victoria
530 posts
pretty sure we got private corps out there using guns (or being protected by those with guns) right now in parts of the world "for their own protection" right?

But remember there are no laws anymore. We got rid of them so corps could run without regulation and gov control. No more gov. To make it fair lets say that applies not just to corps but to everyone.

So people dont want that mining corp in their backyard (ie. PNG) or they dont want their river poluted upsteam or a new McDonalds built in their town so they are free to grab an AK and roll on in to "protest". The corp will roll out their own security and so we have a warlord.

Dont forget warlords are also businessmen. They dont just roll around shooting stuff up for no reason. The drug trade is run by warlords at the source. Big business. Drugs because they have higher profit margins then selling burgers and cheap TVs.

The economy and society and everything isnt some static thing. You tweak something here, change a law or whatever, then its going to put something somewhere else out of whack over there. Intended and unintended consequences.
10:41pm 18/11/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
20785 posts
But remember there are no laws anymore.


offtopic?
10:43pm 18/11/13 Permalink
Captain Lateral
Brisbane, Queensland
4730 posts
not really, you did say "Let the capital holders decides what is fair".

10:48pm 18/11/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
20786 posts
not really, you did say "Let the capital holders decides what is fair".


in relation to the topic of the thread you f*****g imbecile.
10:50pm 18/11/13 Permalink
RuleofBooKz
Melbourne, Victoria
532 posts
No need to have a hissy fit. Everything is connected.

hey i am just following your logic to how you want corporations to operate. You are the one who said no laws governing, regulation or controlling how corporations want to operate.

You want corp to run however they want then you should allow all of us to do the same right?

but no. I already pointed out you want corps free but will be the 1st to call for assistance if someone else had that privilege. your narrow focus seems to think you have a magic wand to just remove all those regulations and protections etc in a vacuum. You havent thought it out. You haven't seen down the road to what the

Intended and unintended consequences


will be.

Im just helping you out by following the logic of your argument.
10:57pm 18/11/13 Permalink
trog
AGN Admin
Brisbane, Queensland
37556 posts
The economy and society and everything isnt some static thing. You tweak something here, change a law or whatever, then its going to put something somewhere else out of whack over there. Intended and unintended consequences.
And one of the fastest ways to do that is have the government interfering with private enterprise to f*** up the absolute simplest part an economic system - the supply and demand.
name one other scenario (aside from taxation which is government enforced by threat of imprisonment) in all of our society where one free party is forced to pay more than they want to,
Third party car insurance?

I am starting to lean towards the minimum wage being a bad thing - at least, the current minimum wage standard we have here. I am not convinced we could get by without one completely, but I certainly think it would be an interesting experiment. The high minimum rate drives up everything .

We would almost certainly employ more people (on a casual basis) if the minimum wage wasn't so high.
11:05pm 18/11/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
20787 posts
not really, you did say "Let the capital holders decides what is fair".

your logic is completely broken. I made an argument against minimum wage laws and CEO pay restrictions on bases:

1. it is against a free society, of people who should be able to make deals with mutual consent.

2. it distorts the market, create unemployment for unskilled people and young people, and arbitrarily restricts access to high paid CEOs.

At no stage did I say carte blanche. I am discussing the TOPIC.

Third party car insurance?
it is typically packaged together with other products and priced accordingly.
11:08pm 18/11/13 Permalink
Tollaz0r!
Brisbane, Queensland
14674 posts
Rulez, CEO's are paid s*** loads for a reason. They get s*** done. The ones that don't are remembered.

Anyone investing in the stock market should be looking at the Directors of a company. They have a past history for the most part.

People put money, large sums of money into a company with a strong director at the helm.

People don't put money into companies that piss all their profits away on the lowest paid workers. Shareholders want a return on the money they invested, not equal pay and whatnot. If a director has a strong track record of providing strong rates of return on the companies they sit on, people will be happy to have them be paid at $1,000,000 or whatever, providing the rate of return on their investment works in their favour.

$1,000,000 on a director and $15,000,000 in wages for the rest of the company, or $600,000 on the director and $20,000,000 for the wages for the rest of the company, the shareholders know which is the better deal.

It isn't the CEO's and directors you should be arbitrarily punishing, it is the shareholders you need to look at...
11:33pm 18/11/13 Permalink
Obes
Brisbane, Queensland
10193 posts
1. it is against a free society, of people who should be able to make deals with mutual consent.

Says the guy who thanks to daddy has bbq's with the premier.
12:09am 19/11/13 Permalink
BroolStoryCo
Melbourne, Victoria
356 posts
This post has been removed.
Reason: Dumb
Send Private Message
12:17am 19/11/13 Permalink
Taipan
USA
4557 posts
Interesting concept, but... If you start a firm, and you're responsible for all of it's operations and all of it's staff then I think it is more than feasible that you're worth more than 12 times the lowest paid employee.


The thing is the size of the companies that would be affected by such a thing the ceo wouldnt be controling all of those things anyway he'd have other people doing it. Any boss that heads op's and HR for example is only going to be running a smallish firm and wouldnt in all likelihood be paying himself more than 12 times the average on the floor employee.

I assume a guy like infi for example wouldnt be earning numbers over that. He would have to verify that though.

The current situation he in the US is totally disgusting where an owner/ceo/major stock holder earns a wage bigger than a cities annual buget yet has people working on wages so low they exist on government subsidies. Whats really disgusting about that is that essentially the tax payer is funding the ceo/owners/stock holders get rich scheme while he/she employs what amounts to slaves.
03:53am 19/11/13 Permalink
Zapo
Brisbane, Queensland
3138 posts
Infi, you clearly have a lot more faith in businesses and corporations ability to do the right thing than I do. Didn't we have a GFC? Didn't Apple (and others) exploit workers in China with horrendous wages & conditions until the media made a big deal about it?

I'm sorry, but there needs to be rules and regulations in place around how companies can operate. Successful companies and individuals should be taxed appropriately and there should be less loop holes so they can't get out of their financial obligations.
06:27am 19/11/13 Permalink
Tollaz0r!
Brisbane, Queensland
14675 posts


Infi, you clearly have a lot more faith in businesses and corporations ability to do the right thing than I do. Didn't we have a GFC? Didn't Apple (and others) exploit workers in China with horrendous wages & conditions until the media made a big deal about it?



Nope.


They still do.



Yet the little people, the 'small' people, the 'caring' people still buy those products in massive numbers. The are essentially giving the directors of those companies a massive TICK of approval on how they are doing business.
Can you blame the Directors and the shareholders, if as far as they can tell, many millions of people are happy with the way business is run as reflected in the continued purchase of product?
09:14am 19/11/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
20788 posts
Rules and regulations set by idiot government who run up massive public debt and waste money on all sorts of perks and largesse for themselves? Yeah rooght.

If Apple is so evil then surely all the workers would know and stay away from the company right? Just as in the grapes of wrath, the ambitious will take a chamce on themselves and endure a little hardship to get a leg in the door.

And for the record I earn f*** all (less than when I was a public servant) and have been on a self imposed pay cut for the last 2 years because times are so tough. So to the bank execs making $7m i say good luck to them and ignore the haters.
09:54am 19/11/13 Permalink
TDog
Brisbane, Queensland
190 posts
So you build a company from scratch from your garage, it becomes a huge million dollar corporation and you're not allowed to give yourself a huge paycheck as the CEO, especially if you continue to make millions?
09:57am 19/11/13 Permalink
BroolStoryCo
Melbourne, Victoria
612 posts
How is someone on the dole at all relevant to the minimum wage of their employees?
You missed my point entirely in my example. I was pointing out that people hysterically scream for CEO pay to be capped, dont not even work for any of the companies or are even associated with the companies, but are just jealous and angry that they don't earn much so they want a hand out or as socialists call it "income equality"

This is where my exaggerated example came into play(to which you then ignored and went on a big off topic about how much fish and chip owners really earn which was completely irrelevant to the point i was making)

It would be like you walking into a business that you have completely no association with and saying to the owner "oh hey i think you earn too much, what you make should be capped because i don't earn much"
10:07am 19/11/13 Permalink
Zapo
Brisbane, Queensland
3139 posts
Why is there a discussion around capping CEO pay? Why are there discussions around closing taxation loopholes and potentially increasing the taxation rate for those people/businesses who are obscenely wealthy?

It's got nothing to do with f*****g jealously (well at least for me), as I've said it before it's because the wealthy and becoming wealthier while the rest of us are earning essentially the same.

There is no good reason why someone who is worth BILLIONS of dollars should have billions of dollars. I don't give a flying f*** if that person has earned it or not. They are going to be able to do whatever they want for the rest of their life. They are going to be able to provide for their family, and their families family, and a small country for as long as they like. So yeah, I would like the wealth to be spread around a little more, which, and I know it's not perfect, is why, as the bare minimum I support things like closing taxation loopholes, and tax havens and that kind of s***. If you want to operate in our country, you want to sell your product here then you will pay taxes as we deem appropriate. There needs to be global action on this.
10:15am 19/11/13 Permalink
trog
AGN Admin
Brisbane, Queensland
37558 posts
Can you blame the Directors and the shareholders, if as far as they can tell, many millions of people are happy with the way business is run as reflected in the continued purchase of product?
Some of this is up to consumers - I feel like if it was revealed tomorrow that Apple make iPhones out of baby seals and puppies, it wouldn't impact their sales too much (this is probably where I diverge from infi's point of view, in that I think /some/ regulation is an absolute must-have - the vast majority of citizens simply don't care about where their stuff comes from and regulation is required to stop tragedy of the commons kind of issues, etc, etc).

Arguably, Steve Jobs earned every goddamn cent he was paid as CEO, if not more
If you want to operate in our country, you want to sell your product here then you will pay taxes as we deem appropriate. There needs to be global action on this.
I agree, except probably not in the direction you are thinking.

At the end of the day there will always be nations and/or states that provide tax haven opportunities - especially as things get more and more digital and the idea of virtual corporations becomes more of a big deal.

I suspect the solution isn't to tighten the screws locally, because it will just encourage people to look harder to find better deals overseas, or ultimately just move all their profits offshore.

I would rather see countries attempting to compete with better incentives and lower corporate tax rates and finding new and interesting ways of generating revenue (and, along with infi, reducing their waste spend on bulls***).

Note however I am a bit of a massive socialist at heart and think things like healthcare, education, roads, electricity, water, basic Internet, etc, should be provided as a government service to citizens - so I think collecting tax is extremely important. But if you make the corporate environment hostile, everyone will just go elsewhere.

True anecdotal story:

I was down at Parliament House in Canberra months ago sitting on a panel about encouraging IT innovation in Australia. After the panel I was approached by two luverly ladies who wanted to have a chat. Turned out they worked for the British consulate here in Australia - they were basically hitting up Australian companies (in PARLIAMENT HOUSE in CANBERRA) to tell them about the benefits of moving their business to the UK.

The benefits, btw, are pretty f*****g good. Massive R&D tax incentives, massive incentives for patents, massive services, etc. They are not messing around. They are making an environment where tech companies can go and do awesome stuff.

Anyway, I see capping CEO pay like this. It's just another way to drive those CEOs off shore to places where they don't have those caps in place. We need those corporate stooges to drive our industry (well, the good ones, anyway). They need to be compensated in a way that encourages their hard work and success, or they'll just go somewhere where their abilities are recognised.
10:29am 19/11/13 Permalink
Zapo
Brisbane, Queensland
3140 posts
I understand that Trog, I understand that if you penalise people or businesses with hefty taxes they will just move OS and operate elsewhere, and that's basically the campaign that's happening in Swizterland which will likely result in the CEO pay NOT being capped. They're saying businesses would go elsewhere.

We're stuck between a rock and a hard place. If you give business tax concessions, and incentives then they'll come to your country to operate because it's cheaper. That will of course result in a number jobs the bulk of which will get a piddly wage in comparison to the extreme amounts of money the execs/board/shareholders will get. If you don't do that then of course business goes elsewhere and there is less tax coming in to support government programs.

That's why there needs to be action taken on a global stage. If the EU, UK, US and whoever else wants to pile on got together and said - lets put together a consistent tax structure for companies, close the loop holes then everything is fair game

I know it's not going to happen, I'm not that naive, but I just can't believe that we're in the position that we're really not able to do anything, and these mega corporations are essentially running things and dictating what goes on. The article highlighted the massive increase in exec wages in the last 20 years. Why is that going to stop/slow down if we change nothing?
10:40am 19/11/13 Permalink
PornoPete
Melbourne, Victoria
1157 posts
I wouldn't be opposed the idea of a discussion about CEO wage regulations.

Shareholders don't have a strong record on putting meaningful checks in place.

If a CEO is worth his salary to his company than cool but as this graph shows, and its from Alan Kohler so its not super socialist propaganda, the relationship between 'paying the best get the best' is tenuous at best.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/4855052-3x2-700x467.jpg
10:44am 19/11/13 Permalink
Hogfather
Cairns, Queensland
14577 posts
Been kind of avoiding this one, but I'll chip in.. The discussion should IMO be framed around the target economy, in this case Australia.

We have a very robust progressive taxation structure and an equally robust minimum wage standard (both currently among the highest in the world). Our regulatory structure is very strong - some might say too strong, HI INFI. Meanwhile its entirely possible that we will become a top 10 world economy this decade and had a dream run through the GFC. Not only are we prosperous, but recent studies show that the gap between Australia's rich and poor is one of the lowest in the developed world. (no references for those sorry, but it is all recent news / easy to find).

We're doing quite well, almost all of us.

Against this backdrop I have a hard time understanding the need to cap the pays of CEOs aside from pandering to the 'nobody is worth that much' crowd which when looked at honestly is surely more about poppies and jealousy than anything else.

A CEO who is taking 4 million (over 100x minimum wage) is also sending 2M back in taxes, which (in a personal example) pays for about 100 people to enjoy Gilenya, a world class Multiple Sclerosis treatment. This treatment is vital and enables me to stay at work and run my company, and in turn employ people.

There are other issues with the idea. Is it just the CEO, or can nobody be paid more than 12x the lowest paid worker in the organisation? What about a retained lawyer or elite technical specialist hired on a day rate? Without lofty salaries, what's the driver to take on all the responsibility and push beyond middle management? Lets be clear, I know some CEOs, and its work.

IMO we should be instead making sure that the system is equitable and focusing on high net worth individuals who are abusing their privilege to avoid paying their share rather than tokenistic boundaries on the remuneration of the most successful, who hand over half to the tax man anyway.
10:45am 19/11/13 Permalink
Nitro
Gold Coast, Queensland
2274 posts
Couple of things I'll add:

- Executive remuneration is always heavily scrutinized by shareholders. If executives are overpaid or poorly governed, people move their money where they see better value.

- Executives get paid a lot because they are in demand and there are few people that can perform these roles effectively.

- Performance based compensation is tricky. You don't want to motivate a CEO to pursue short term goals that may not favor, or may distract from long term objectives. Shareholders can negatively influence the prospects of a company when they are driven by dividend yields, so in some cases the board and the CEO need to know when to give the finger to the shareholders.

- Another problem with performance based compensation is attribution. Businesses in manufacturing, retail, tourism and hospitality sectors are struggling at the moment because of macroeconomic factors that they have no influence over. A great executive who can navigate a company through 'stormy seas' may produce unimpressive results on paper whilst other executives receive accolades for standing at the helm of a company at the right place at the right time.
10:47am 19/11/13 Permalink
redhat
Sydney, New South Wales
1141 posts
So you build a company from scratch from your garage, it becomes a huge million dollar corporation and you're not allowed to give yourself a huge paycheck as the CEO, especially if you continue to make millions?


I think something like the 12:1 rule should only apply to publicly traded companies. If you've built it yourself or say with a couple of partners you're the major shareholders and would get the profits anyways.

I understand that Trog, I understand that if you penalise people or businesses with hefty taxes they will just move OS and operate elsewhere, and that's basically the campaign that's happening in Swizterland which will likely result in the CEO pay NOT being capped. They're saying businesses would go elsewhere.


Most of the ASX200 are oligopolies or miners, it's not like they can just offshore everything anyway.
11:05am 19/11/13 Permalink
Raven
Melbourne, Victoria
8221 posts
I'm all in favour of capping pay, though I think the figures need a bit of revising. I don't think you're going to get many executives agreeing to 12 times the lowest paid staff member.

Maybe 12:1 of the median salary in the company, and 20:1 of the minimum.
11:13am 19/11/13 Permalink
taggs
6248 posts
Most of the ASX200 are oligopolies or miners, it's not like they can just offshore everything anyway.


Assuming that the hypothetical cap applies only to listed companies as suggested above then I imagine that any company seeking to avoid the cap could simply delist on the ASX and relist in a jurisdiction that did not apply a cap on executive remuneration and operate through wholly owned, private, Australian-based subsidiaries.
11:45am 19/11/13 Permalink
RuleofBooKz
Melbourne, Victoria
534 posts
money is not a very successful or appealing motivator it should not be a primary focus
02:49pm 19/11/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
20790 posts
I have never heard of someone so delusional and out of touch with the real world.
02:57pm 19/11/13 Permalink
RuleofBooKz
Melbourne, Victoria
535 posts
right back at you kid
03:03pm 19/11/13 Permalink
Tollaz0r!
Brisbane, Queensland
14676 posts

money is not a very successful or appealing motivator it should not be a primary focus


Pretty sure I'd be motivated if someone wanted to pay me $250,000/year...
04:26pm 19/11/13 Permalink
taggs
6249 posts
You awful, awful man.
04:52pm 19/11/13 Permalink
RuleofBooKz
Melbourne, Victoria
536 posts
i hope we have all heard of Forbes? You know one of the largest Business magazines in America? or how about Bloomberg Businessweek? Again a huge business publication from America. Here are two articles on motivation:

http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/06/money-motivation-pay-leadership-managing-employees.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-09/the-secret-to-effective-motivation.html

Good reads you might want to look at them.

Of course i could get literally 100's of quotes as source for my statement. Because guess what? Its year one business at a tertiary education level. Its basically text book management stuff. Its not even the tough stuff. Just google something like "money is not a good motivator" or something similar and you will see pages of the stuff.

You see unlike you "experts" ive actually Studied BA Business - Management. I said before that I know business (not so keen on economics because it think its a bad science/ field run by too many fools but thats another thread). So yes i do know "how hard CEO's work".


I would put the patronizing tone of some down to the issue is, as has already been said, that as soon as you associate with the Greens or have some seemingly socialist(?) idea's the perception of you is of a grade 10 drop out hippie pot smoking unemployed latte sipper who is full of hot air but no clue. The reverse of course to this is the perception that anyone subscribing to liberal thinking must be a very intelligent guy who has top marks and a keen grasp on business and the world of business in general.

ha

We could probably spend a few pages discussing alternative management models that, for example, have employees choosing their own value and wage in staff meetings and the CEO doing the same. Like Creative Compensation. But there are lots of alternative management models that go against "the guy at the top earns 100x what the guy on the floor makes"

fun article: Japan Airlines' CEO pays himself less than the pilots, takes the bus to work

When Japan Airlines hit hard times in 2009 and began to lay off its staff, JAL CEO Haruka Nishimatsu cut his own pay to less than that of his pilots and eliminated all his perks. He now rides public transit to the office and eats in the employee cafeteria, standing in line with his colleagues.

http://boingboing.net/2011/02/25/japan-airlines-ceo-p.html.

motivated by money? mhmm
05:47pm 19/11/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
20791 posts
ok then the CEOs shouldn't have any problem because you quoted some internet articles. problem solved let's move on!
06:26pm 19/11/13 Permalink
Raven
Melbourne, Victoria
8223 posts
Pretty sure I'd be motivated if someone wanted to pay me $250,000/year.

I dunno man, I'm on six figures and I'm pretty bloody unmotivated. I'd do a job I love for far less.
06:26pm 19/11/13 Permalink
baz
Victoria
263 posts
Richard Brandson is an interesting fella.
06:50pm 19/11/13 Permalink
RuleofBooKz
Melbourne, Victoria
16 posts
This post has been removed.
Reason: 918481 citations needed
Send Private Message
06:56pm 19/11/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
20792 posts
ok so all of the CEOs will just go on base salary, you've proved your point. money is not a motivator. sorry.
07:22pm 19/11/13 Permalink
redhat
Sydney, New South Wales
1142 posts
I dunno man, I'm on six figures and I'm pretty bloody unmotivated. I'd do a job I love for far less.


True story I wish someone had shown me this when I was younger.

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-g8_iEwzILU4/TkidD0beQjI/AAAAAAAAATg/3O4TnyUfDg0/w800-h800/Career+Planning.png
07:33pm 19/11/13 Permalink
RuleofBooKz
Melbourne, Victoria
17 posts
This post has been removed.
Reason: Use support process
Send Private Message
11:46pm 19/11/13 Permalink
DoCZero
Other International
250 posts
I dunno man, I'm on six figures and I'm pretty bloody unmotivated. I'd do a job I love for far less.


So... Why dont you?

Not giving you s*** - just wanted to point out you only got a limited amount of time here - better to get busy doing the s*** you love right?
11:46pm 19/11/13 Permalink
DoCZero
Other International
251 posts
are u f*****g kidding removing that post? for the reason "citations needed"?


Yo Rule - you kinda sound like a kid crying. No offence , just an observation. Additionally why does it matter - just agree to disagree and be done with it.

The whole thread is a horrible hypothetical which is a disconnect from reality.
11:48pm 19/11/13 Permalink
RuleofBooKz
Melbourne, Victoria
18 posts
This post has been removed.
Reason: Use support process
Send Private Message
11:58pm 19/11/13 Permalink
BroolStoryCo
Melbourne, Victoria
218 posts
This post has been removed.
Reason: Rubbish
Send Private Message
12:22am 20/11/13 Permalink
RuleofBooKz
Melbourne, Victoria
19 posts
This post has been removed.
Reason: Use support process
Send Private Message
12:58am 20/11/13 Permalink
Jim
UK
13380 posts
lol massive hissy
report your issue via the process outlined in the rules you agreed to

I didn't remove the one you're complaining about but I've gone ahead and removed the others since
01:09am 20/11/13 Permalink
RuleofBooKz
Melbourne, Victoria
20 posts
This post has been removed.
Reason: Use support process
Send Private Message
01:31am 20/11/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
20793 posts
you sure know how to wwebsite
01:38am 20/11/13 Permalink
DoCZero
Other International
252 posts
For some reason - this situation reminds me of (updated):



Leave Rulezofbook alone.... Waaaaa
01:38am 20/11/13 Permalink
Nitro
Gold Coast, Queensland
2275 posts
You see unlike you "experts" ive actually Studied BA Business - Management.


And obviously didn't finish it. Or learn anything, for that matter.

I don't think you understand the articles you're referencing.

In the Forbes article, Katzenbach suggest that some recent Neuroscience research further validates Frederick Herzberg's "two-factor" theory (1959) of motivation.

According to Herzberg, individuals are not content with the satisfaction of lower-order needs at work, for example, those associated with minimum salary levels or safe and pleasant working conditions. Rather, individuals look for the gratification of higher-level psychological needs having to do with achievement, recognition, responsibility, advancement, and the nature of the work itself.


Herzberg suggests that people there are two factors to employee motivation "motivators" and "hygene factors".

Motivators are more concerned with the actual job itself. For instance how interesting the work is and how much opportunity it gives for extra responsibility, recognition and promotion. Hygiene factors are factors which ‘surround the job’ rather than the job itself. For example a worker will only turn up to work if a business has provided a reasonable level of pay and safe working conditions but these factors will not make him work harder at his job once he is there.

To motivate employees, Herzberg proposed methods such as these:

Job enlargement – workers being given a greater variety of tasks to perform (not necessarily more challenging) which should make the work more interesting.

Job enrichment - involves workers being given a wider range of more complex, interesting and challenging tasks surrounding a complete unit of work. This should give a greater sense of achievement.

Empowerment means delegating more power to employees to make their own decisions over areas of their working life.

This methods were inspired by a guy called Maslow, who came up with his Hierarchy of Needs in 1943.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Maslow's_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg/640px-Maslow's_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg.png

Money helps with this stuff.

Notably, Herzberg viewed pay as a hygiene factor. That is, that pay will motivate someone to get to work but not necessarily motivate them to perform tasks. This is different to Frederick Winslow Taylor's theory of Scientific Management, which suggested that people were basically only motivated by money. Taylor is the godfather of the Efficiency Movement - "Taylorism", but he wasn't much of a psychologist.

"It is only through enforced standardization of methods, enforced adoption of the best implements and working conditions, and enforced cooperation that this faster work can be assured. And the duty of enforcing the adoption of standards and enforcing this cooperation rests with management alone."

- Taylor's Principle of Scientific Management (1911)

That quote sums up Taylorism pretty well. You can also see why Lenin was a big fan and tried to use it to roll out Communism.

Obviously people don't get very motivated working like that and after a few clusterf**** Taylorism had fallen out of favour by 1930. Despite his HR issues, Taylor was a brilliant operations thinker and a major contributor to the Efficiency Movement.

Part of the movement was a guy called Edwards Deming. Post World War 2, he worked with Japanese manufacturers to assist with re-building their economy. A big part of that was getting one particular manufacturer to produce car parts efficiently and Taylor's concepts around continuous improvement would be useful here.

Deming had noticed that traditional Japanese culture took pride in their details (eg food dishes), discipline and speed (eg martial arts), and resourcefulness (eg origami) but this wasn't how Japanese workers were seeing the factory floor. Toyota were able to realize the benefits of some of Taylor's principles because they let factory floor workers design improvements to their operations (like Herzberg would suggest), rather than the managers (Taylor), which empowered employees and developed a culture that has influenced all Japanese manufacturing. Some of the concepts from Toyota Quality Management (aka Lean) that you will see everywhere in workplaces these days are Plan-Do-Check-Act, Kanban, Kaizen etc.

I really wish some people would do a little research before broadcasting their ignorance.

last edited by Nitro at 03:07:51 20/Nov/13

last edited by Nitro at 03:08:45 20/Nov/13
03:06am 20/11/13 Permalink
Zapo
Brisbane, Queensland
3141 posts
PornoPete posted the graph earlier, but the article is also worth a read.

But executive salaries may be where members’ and unions’ interests and passions intersect. There are rumblings that the time is approaching for industry funds to do something about the pillaging of companies by the executive classes in the name of performance that doesn’t exist.


I particularly enjoy this quote.
Should CEOs of big companies get paid more than those in charge of smaller ones? Definitely not, in fact large company CEOs are surrounded by more support staff, analysts and direct reports so arguably their job is easier.


http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/7/31/financial-services/myth-pay-performance
08:03am 20/11/13 Permalink
Tollaz0r!
Brisbane, Queensland
14677 posts
RuleofBooKz, this is another heads up for you buddy. Like in the other thread where Taggs was a gun at what he does, Nitro is a cainer in this field.

If Nitro isn't a CEO or something, he should be.
08:04am 20/11/13 Permalink
baz
Victoria
264 posts
The whole thread is a horrible hypothetical which is a disconnect from reality.


This thread is supposed to be a hypothetical isnt it? We arnt discussing the past, we are discussing what could be.
I use we very loosely here...as I am not really discussing jack s***.

I like what nitro has done here but I cant help but feel that he has clouded the issue of money being a motivator with all the other stuff. The only direct point I got from his post was, "Money helps with this stuff". and basically that money will get a person to work but it wont make them work well, is this what we should have taken from all that or am I just trippin balls.
12:31pm 20/11/13 Permalink
paveway
Brisbane, Queensland
18929 posts
i notice on the top level of Maslow's hierarchy "Acceptance of fact"

rulz seems to struggled with this one

are you lacking self esteem bro?
01:23pm 20/11/13 Permalink
PornoPete
Melbourne, Victoria
1159 posts
Well a private equity fund worth 29 times the US national debt, would be a fact that I would have trouble accepting with out seeing some data to back it up.
02:08pm 20/11/13 Permalink
koopz
Brisbane, Queensland
10150 posts
If Apple is so evil then surely all the workers would know and stay away from the company right? Just as in the grapes of wrath, the ambitious will take a chamce on themselves and endure a little hardship to get a leg in the door.



just to be clear here..


Are you talking about dudes in Apple retail stores or the IT Engineering slaves in China?



09:33pm 21/11/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
20803 posts
the IT Engineering slaves in China


they are not slaves, they take the jobs freely
09:55pm 21/11/13 Permalink
RuleofBooKz
Melbourne, Victoria
549 posts
thank you Tollaz0r for the heads up; that was considerate of you. The fact that he is the current gun on AG about business is just what i said: current. You dont know where i fit in. Yet.

But since he brought up Maslows Hierarchy of Needs (1st year uni business content) why dont we focus on this to look at if money should be regarded as a primary motivation for people or just as something secondary?

Be aware that the graphic nitro posted is just one way of looking at maslows hierarchy (the one from wiki but not in many texts). Google it yourself and see how many permutations there are.

So lets take a look working on the one nitro posted). It works like the food pyramid that the bigger slices at the bottom represent important stuff u have to generally have before you can move on. For example on the bottom level we have breathing food and water etc. Its hard to worry about money when you cant breath.

Moving up to the next layer, that of safety, we see money here is the really important drive: employment, resources, property that kind of thing requires money. Thats why we get a job in the 1st place to pay for that stuff. But there are layers above that one right?

So now we get to love and belonging. And here it gets interesting. To me money no longer factors into this. Sure some would say "but with money i have lots of friends". That to me is shallow. You dont have friends because u are rich. And if you think you do then im sorry for you. Same with family and love interests. None of that is about the money. But there are still layers above that. You are a good human being not because of how much you have in the bank but because you are a good human being.

Esteem. Self esteem. Sure there are definitely those out there who think how much money they have = self worth. They think their big bank balance = self worth. Well i dont. You are one of those who think people are impressed by your bank balance? That they respect you just because you have lots of cash? Again. Shallow. Money just serves to distort what this and the last layer is going on about.

And at the last,,, or is it,,, we have self actualization.

Level Seven: Self-Actualization

For years, self-actualization was the top level that a person could ever reach. It was believed to be the area where someone could finally reach their full potential in life. They have gone through each of the levels and completed them to their satisfaction. Now is the time for them to focus on their purpose in life, to push themselves to the limit.

http://lburmaster.hubpages.com/hub/Understanding-Maslows-Hierarchy-of-Needs

The goal of an individual. Unfortunately those who value money above all things never reach this level. Thats why its called self actualization. If you think money as the all important thing a human can aspire too you will lend up empty. What being on this level really means is you realise all the material bulls*** and greed and money = status just doesn't matter.

But you dont see that in the above graphic?

Level Eight: Self-Transcendence

Near the end of his life, Maslow added the eighth level of the pyramid. Above self-fulfullment exists self-transcendence. The highest level now, an individual focuses on helping others. In helping people, they connect with something outside of themselves in aiding others. They feel as if they are apart of something bigger than themselves and reach a new level of being human.

http://lburmaster.hubpages.com/hub/Understanding-Maslows-Hierarchy-of-Needs

here is the same graph with the 8th layer added:

http://www.consciousaging.com/Images/Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.jpg

where on the ladder do people who come on forums to help explain and enlighten that materialistic bulls*** is just that fit?

Money is there. It is a need. It does motivate. But its well well down the list of what really should motivate a fully formed human being. Therefor it is a secondary motivation (or perhaps a third fourth or fifth motivation)

To me pave "money cant buy happiness" is a fact you need to grasp. Maybe you have your own "facts" you think i need to grasp. Fine. But if you think having money, that acquiring more money is the primary goal of your life, and it will buy self esteem then i might say i choose not to see your "facts"

Here is a cute story i once heard. A businessman on holiday to a beautiful country lake see's a fisherman napping by his simple boat on the shore to a beautiful lake. The Businessman went up to the fisher man and asked: why are you not working harder? IF i was you i would work all day and make more money. Then i would be able to buy more boats. Hire more guys. And i would make heaps of money and so i would become successful. Do you think you will become successful taking a nap in the middle of the day like this?

So the fisherman slowly gets up and says: Well i can see what you are saying and i can tell you are a successful businessman and have a lot of money. But tell me this: why are you here?

And the businessman says: well im on a short holiday and enjoying myself. Im busy all year managing my business and making money so im here to relax by this beautiful lake for a few days.

And the fisherman just nods and says: You are here to relax and enjoy yourself? that is what i do every day.
08:04pm 23/11/13 Permalink
Hogfather
Cairns, Queensland
14597 posts
The fact that he is the current gun on AG about business is just what i said: current. You dont know where i fit in. Yet.

Yeh, you're no enigma.

While we already have a very full roster of porkchops, you've made a great opening foray. Well played.
08:15pm 23/11/13 Permalink
RuleofBooKz
Melbourne, Victoria
550 posts
from someone called hogfather being a porkchop is a good thing i take it?

They feel as if they are apart of something bigger than themselves and reach a new level of being human.


i wonder if any of my GA friends remember this from somewhere?
08:16pm 23/11/13 Permalink
baz
Victoria
278 posts
All the cool kids are saying...."money helps with this stuff".

I love how knowledge and data and facts and sauces over ride true intellect here.
Keep saturating the topic with extraneous horses*** so nobody can see the topic anymore.

GG
02:28am 24/11/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
20812 posts
How about intuition... if all the most demanded movie/tv stars, professional sports players and executives demand higher pay maybe it is a motivator? Why is it such a controversial concept?
03:32am 24/11/13 Permalink
fpot
Gold Coast, Queensland
23678 posts
I love how knowledge and data and facts and sauces over ride true intellect here.
hehe you're so cute. Hey, why don't you post about how double blind tests are meaningless again?

And just to be clear, when you say intellect you're referring to ruleofbookz and your own inane drivel aren't you? That's extra cute.
09:28am 24/11/13 Permalink
Spook
Brisbane, Queensland
36868 posts
while we're abolishing minimum wage, why is it that kids cant work 40 hours weeks?

as a business owner (lolz) having to pay adults is such a drag and really cuts into my profits. if only the stupid government would get out of the road and let me pay kids to do 50 hours a week for me i would be able to make so much more money!
10:01am 24/11/13 Permalink
baz
Victoria
279 posts
If all you can do with all your vast knowledge is "money helps with this stuff", whats the point?
Just because I could rattle off the part numbers from all the components in a Formula 1 car doesnt mean I'm Mark Webber.

And you're confused abit mate, I dont know anything about double blind tests.
10:23am 24/11/13 Permalink
fpot
Gold Coast, Queensland
23681 posts
That's right, you were the guy who thought critical thinking is a hindrance, ruleofbookz is the guy who hates double blind tests.
10:52am 24/11/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
20813 posts
Yeah Spook, they are totally the same thing.
12:31pm 24/11/13 Permalink
Spook
Brisbane, Queensland
36871 posts
let the market set what kids should be paid and how many hours they can work!

some kids mite really really want to work 50 hours a week, why should the government tell them that they cant!
12:57pm 24/11/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
20814 posts
because kids are not adults?
01:01pm 24/11/13 Permalink
ph33x
Thailand
730 posts
while we're abolishing minimum wage, why is it that kids cant work 40 hours weeks?

as a business owner (lolz) having to pay adults is such a drag and really cuts into my profits. if only the stupid government would get out of the road and let me pay kids to do 50 hours a week for me i would be able to make so much more money!

I'm sure Indian kids can work for you. Probably $20 a month too.

Capitalism! F*** yeah!
01:17pm 24/11/13 Permalink
Spook
Brisbane, Queensland
36875 posts
because kids are not adults?


why should i care about this when i could be making extra $$$$$$ bro?

03:06pm 24/11/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
20815 posts
because kids need education. adults can make their own decisions. what has this got to do with a minimum wage?
03:59pm 24/11/13 Permalink
Spook
Brisbane, Queensland
36879 posts
as a business owner, my main concern is getting my wage costs down. paying adults is a drag, because they ask for so much more money, if i could get kids to do all my work, i wouldnt have to pay them very much at all.
04:09pm 24/11/13 Permalink
fpot
Gold Coast, Queensland
23685 posts
bro, surely disabled kids would be cheaper. Stuff like mopping and picking up garbage can be done if you're missing a limb or slightly retarded. Gotta contribute to society and pull up those bootstraps bro.
04:11pm 24/11/13 Permalink
Spook
Brisbane, Queensland
36880 posts
i now see the error of my ways, not only is my government costing me mad skrilla paying adults a set minimum wage (way higher than they should be earning), but really, i should be able to pay disabled kids nothing to make me a product in australia to really maximise my profits!

really, id be doing spazzies a favour!
04:15pm 24/11/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
20816 posts
Exploiting children is not a viable option and it would not help society. Children are learning, they do not have mature judgment and decision making skills. Children need time to mature and learn basic academic and social skills, that is the purpose of education./ Children with good educaiton can command better jobs and better rates of pay upon graduation. Adults can make their own decisions and decide on what rate of pay they are willing to accept.

You are using a strawman which fpot (the strawman crusader) seems to be latching onto. Trolling while the cricket is postponed - livin large.
04:16pm 24/11/13 Permalink
fpot
Gold Coast, Queensland
23686 posts
It's not a strawman when you're taking the piss mate, only when you're trying to make a serious argument. hth.
04:33pm 24/11/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
20817 posts
you may have been taking the piss but spook was stating that child labour and minimum rates for adults are somehow comparable.
04:37pm 24/11/13 Permalink
fpot
Gold Coast, Queensland
23688 posts
No, he was more playing on your ridiculous f*** you got mine attitude. The joke was that you could be saying what he was saying and people might actually take you seriously.

Must suck to be one of those people who needs to have jokes explained to them.
04:40pm 24/11/13 Permalink
Spook
Brisbane, Queensland
36881 posts
all i care about bro is maximum $$$$$$ from my business dealings. (ie what the market decides my labor force is worth)

last edited by Spook at 16:43:26 24/Nov/13
04:41pm 24/11/13 Permalink
BroolStoryCo
Melbourne, Victoria
625 posts
all i care about bro is maximum $$$$$$ from my business dealings.


Who wouldn't? Unless you are a socialist of course.
04:44pm 24/11/13 Permalink
fpot
Gold Coast, Queensland
23689 posts
I heard your mum just raised your allowance bro so congrats on your recent business dealings.
04:47pm 24/11/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
20818 posts
F*** you got mine eh

Tell that to young Australians who can't get a job because employers expect experience for a full wage.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-30/study-work-fulltime-australians-youth-unemployment/5056224

Tell that to Australians who have to fudge a way onto disability pension once they're over 50 because no one will employ them. More youths and older people in jobs means more taxes, less crime, less anti-social behaviour, less suicide and depression. It is demeaning to tell someone that if they cannot get a job worth $X minimum wage they are worth nothing and have to go onto benefits.

Every person should have a right to get a job. Every person should have a right to work their way up from the bottom. Presently they don't even get a start.
05:05pm 24/11/13 Permalink
fpot
Gold Coast, Queensland
23690 posts
Cool article bro, but it doesn't mention anything about high minimum wages being the reason for youth unemployment. I have a feeling that might just be your own unfounded lolbertarian opinion.
05:11pm 24/11/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
20819 posts
OMG you think newbs who f*** up and break things get full rates.... I give up.
05:13pm 24/11/13 Permalink
Spook
Brisbane, Queensland
36883 posts
they shoudl totally get not paid at all in any job!
05:28pm 24/11/13 Permalink
baz
Victoria
280 posts
That's right, you were the guy who thought critical thinking is a hindrance.


I actually said that our addiction to critical thinking could be an obstacle to our evolution.
Thinking that we can calculate a solution to the problems of the world is futile imo.
We need a collective shift in consciousness that will be born of compassion, love and empathy for our fellow man.
Critical thinking doesnt encompass that realm of understanding, as far as I know, and if it did it would be called psycho babble by most people.

Imagine all the people, living life in peace.
You may say that Im a dreamer, but Im not the only one 8)
07:43pm 24/11/13 Permalink
fpot
Gold Coast, Queensland
23694 posts
I actually said that our addiction to critical thinking could be an obstacle to our evolution.
I was cutting you some slack by leaving out the details. Addiction to critical thinking being an obstacle to evolution... whoa boy, that's a doozy.
08:07pm 24/11/13 Permalink
baz
Victoria
281 posts
Its actually really quite easy to understand, but accepting however....

Heres a good example regarding compassion.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2864937/

This article is cram packed with critical thinking, data and sauces....but having read this isnt a prerequisite to feel compassion...true.
You could read stuff like this until you pass out but it wont make you any more compassionate.
I put it to you that over-thinking basic human emotions detracts us from our ability to feel. In our effort to understand our world and our selves we are becoming complacent or desensitised to the beauty of it.

I
10:38pm 24/11/13 Permalink
fpot
Gold Coast, Queensland
23700 posts
I think I am a compassionate person. I could be wrong though. What have I ever said or done to make you think otherwise?

I put it to you that over-thinking basic human emotions detracts us from our ability to feel.
This is just so vague. It's classic pseudoscience really. How do you over-think an emotion? If you did manage to over-think an emotion, how does it detract our ability to feel? And to feel what? The very emotion we are over-thinking?

In our effort to understand our world and our selves we are becoming complacent or desensitised to the beauty of it.
I kind of get what you mean here, but I see it another way. Just because most of the old mysteries have been disproven by science doesn't mean that we won't get all new ones. And there are a whole truckload of things that will remain mysteries in our lifetime. That's kind of what you meant by beauty isn't it? Things that aren't just black and white and that defy normal convention?

But still

I actually said that our addiction to critical thinking could be an obstacle to our evolution.
wowsers
10:57pm 24/11/13 Permalink
RuleofBooKz
Melbourne, Victoria
554 posts
logic with emotion in balance
11:17pm 24/11/13 Permalink
FaceMan
Brisbane, Queensland
10837 posts
Spock and Bones.
11:42pm 24/11/13 Permalink
TicMan
Melbourne, Victoria
8843 posts
Phew, sanity wins the day!
09:38am 25/11/13 Permalink
DoCZero
Other International
266 posts
Yo - Rule, let me fight your battle for you lol:



However, I use the carrot and the stick in my profession - currently the sales team is has no guarantee's. If they dont sell - they get paid minimum. If they hit their target they get paid very well. If they exceed they can earn up to 15% of profits.

as a PRIMARY motivator - if you don't have enough money for X (X being - anything on the low rung of Maslows HoN i.e food / shelter / sex) then people get very motivated to fix that need.
01:29pm 25/11/13 Permalink
Hogfather
Cairns, Queensland
14603 posts
F*** you got mine eh

Tell that to young Australians who can't get a job because employers expect experience for a full wage.

Almost like we need a special minimum wage for apprentices and young people, right?
02:56pm 25/11/13 Permalink
baz
Victoria
282 posts
Yo - Rule, let me fight your battle for you lol:


Are you referring to me? Firstly I am not Bookz, he is a 'hipster' from the city and I am a tradie from the burbs.
Secondly, I dont feel as though I am in an argument or a battle. I simply want to bounce my thoughts off you guys to see where it leads.

That was very informative tho Doc thanks. I don't quite know yet how that fits into what I am trying to say but I will give it some thought.


I think I am a compassionate person. I could be wrong though. What have I ever said or done to make you think otherwise?


My last post was a bit ambiguous in its wording I guess, I didnt mean to imply that I was referring to you, as in YOU but you as in everyone. I like to use we and us and our when I talk about society to include myself but I was a tad careless in this case, apologies. I am sure you are a nice guy and I have nothing of any substance against you at all. In fact I appreciate you giving me the time to respond to me.


This is just so vague. It's classic pseudoscience really. How do you over-think an emotion? If you did manage to over-think an emotion, how does it detract our ability to feel? And to feel what? The very emotion we are over-thinking?


I wasnt intending it to be taken as any sort of science. You are trying to quantify emotions into a scientific framework but I don't think this is possible with the knowledge we have now.

At the risk of being vague, I can illustrate exactly what I mean by over thinking an emotion and by what beauty is simply by reminding you that you are asking me what beauty means.

Its more simple than OUR sophisticated minds will allow it to be.
06:06pm 25/11/13 Permalink
DoCZero
Other International
270 posts
Are you referring to me?


Nah - was referring to Bookz , mainly because he was discussing the money vs motivation part of this conversation - I remembered seeing that video a while ago when investigating such a topic while redoing the company incentive structure. Thought it was appropriate. =)
06:16pm 25/11/13 Permalink
baz
Victoria
283 posts
Ah yes of course. That was a week or so ago I think. Fpot confused me with Bookz earlier and and I just thought I'd clear up any confusion.
I really like those animated vids. They're great for people like me who cbf researching a topic for hours.
06:59pm 25/11/13 Permalink
system
Internet
--
06:59pm 25/11/13 Permalink
AusGamers Forums
Show: per page
1
This thread is archived and cannot be replied to.