Duodenum Posted March 1, 2020 Share Posted March 1, 2020 2 minutes ago, gurn said: I wonder if Albertans will be bitching about equalization payments, when they are receiving them? Maybe I'm wrong but they still aren't close to being a province that will receive payments I don't think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted March 1, 2020 Share Posted March 1, 2020 13 minutes ago, gurn said: I wonder if Albertans will be bitching about equalization payments, when they are receiving them? Oh man you need to educate yourself. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted March 1, 2020 Share Posted March 1, 2020 9 minutes ago, Duodenum said: Maybe I'm wrong but they still aren't close to being a province that will receive payments I don't think. No, you're correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted March 1, 2020 Share Posted March 1, 2020 31 minutes ago, Duodenum said: Maybe I'm wrong but they still aren't close to being a province that will receive payments I don't think. They would be, after several years of 10 billion defecits would they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duodenum Posted March 1, 2020 Share Posted March 1, 2020 Just now, gurn said: They would be, after several years of 10 billion defecits would they? Equalization isn't based on surplus/decifits, moreso on fiscal capacity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted March 1, 2020 Share Posted March 1, 2020 1 minute ago, Duodenum said: I sit at around a 13:1 ratio myself., the numbers aren't as foreign as you think. I understand why the ratio is increasing but you're only looking at the top end. CEO pay is increasing because company values are increasing of course, but an increase in CEO pay is not the only reason the ratio and class divide is increasing. It's also because the same people at the top are keeping workers' pay and benefits down, the world over. Ie. if minimum wage kept up with inflation, then the ratio would probably be sliced in half. So, my answer whether CEO's deserve a 300:1? Absolutely not. I don't doubt that CEO's deserve to be well rewarded, I am a Director myself, but it's the ratio I'm arguing about, not their workload. My beef is with the haves on top that actively work to keep the have-nots with as little as possible, which is a bigger cause of the ballooning ratio. You seemed to glaze over everything I just said. You're not comparing base pay of the workers to base pay of a CEO. Stock options make up the majority of their salary. The better the company does the more the CEO makes, in a similar manner to what an owner of a business makes. The more profitable a business is the more the owner takes home. You should become more friendly with the CFO as he will talk you about how profits. The idea that CEO's are keeping more for themselves all part of this elaborate plan to keep the lower end with as little is complete and utter nonsense. That an extremely poor business model and will hinder them from from acquiring needed talent to grow (aka hurting the stock and hurting his own pay). The goals of companies is to grow, take profits invest back into the business and see the ROI. People seem to try and simplify everything. Iger made 50 million, if he only took $1 in pay gave that equally to his 201k employees, that equates to a whopping $250 annual raise for everyone or less than 15 cent raise. So when people realize the math of the CEO doesn't compute, they move on to the companies yearly profits...and well they fail to realize that companies typically hand out bonuses to reward strong years. Disney just finished giving out a $1000 bonus to over half of their employees last week. WestJet, southwest airlines, Ford and many others have what's called as profit share, which gives back the exceeded profits to employees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted March 1, 2020 Share Posted March 1, 2020 42 minutes ago, gurn said: I wonder if Albertans will be bitching about equalization payments, when they are receiving them? Alberta will the new NEWFIES of Canada... in the next decade..... We will be telling jokes... like. HOW MANY Albertans does it take to screw in a light bulb ????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duodenum Posted March 1, 2020 Share Posted March 1, 2020 39 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: You seemed to glaze over everything I just said. You're not comparing base pay of the workers to base pay of a CEO. Stock options make up the majority of their salary. The better the company does the more the CEO makes, in a similar manner to what an owner of a business makes. The more profitable a business is the more the owner takes home. You should become more friendly with the CFO as he will talk you about how profits. The idea that CEO's are keeping more for themselves all part of this elaborate plan to keep the lower end with as little is complete and utter nonsense. That an extremely poor business model and will hinder them from from acquiring needed talent to grow (aka hurting the stock and hurting his own pay). The goals of companies is to grow, take profits invest back into the business and see the ROI. People seem to try and simplify everything. Iger made 50 million, if he only took $1 in pay gave that equally to his 201k employees, that equates to a whopping $250 annual raise for everyone or less than 15 cent raise. So when people realize the math of the CEO doesn't compute, they move on to the companies yearly profits...and well they fail to realize that companies typically hand out bonuses to reward strong years. Disney just finished giving out a $1000 bonus to over half of their employees last week. WestJet, southwest airlines, Ford and many others have what's called as profit share, which gives back the exceeded profits to employees. Nope, took that into account and it's exactly what I'm talking about. The more profit = more money for the top by way of stock increases, not by annual salary. One of the ways they do that is to keep expenses down by giving workers as little as they can and actively fighting against worker's rights, benefits, minimum wage increases, etc. It wasn't until recently in the states when big business finally gave in and stopped lobbying against minimum wage increases in the states? Then, almost overnight, they all bumped it up to over 11 per and a lot of them over 13 per. Even big business (especially retailers) and starting to see the benefits of higher wages for low earners. CEOs and owners might see a decrease in their renumeration/stock payouts/profits in the short-term but the increase in disposable income of consumers will make up for it in the long run. IMO, everybody who works has the right to a liveable wage and that, in itself, will reduce the ratio. There was a lot of boogeymen around when Canada was increasing worker's benefits in 2017/18 as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias Posted March 1, 2020 Share Posted March 1, 2020 5 hours ago, Toews said: They deserve it, cutting costs, firing employees, moving manufacturing to countries with slave wages makes companies a lot of profit. The CEOs must be compensated for these bold and innovative choices. I would suggest the movement of jobs overseas was a combination of corporations wanting to produce their goods cheaper but it was also SJW who wanted wealth redistribution on a global scale. I would also suggest this is a big reason why people from this camp hate Trump so much. His MAGA movement craps on both these camps. Both Amazon and Walmart are companies that source major portions of their merchandise overseas. They’re also very competitive and have demonstrated significant savings for consumers. How does this all balance out. IMHO it has not benefited the USA enough and is likely the reason why TRUMP has as much support as he does. He took what was a Demo strength and turned it against them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted March 1, 2020 Author Share Posted March 1, 2020 4 hours ago, Ryan Strome said: Well it certainly wasn't 20 billion was it? Considering the liberals promised a 10 billion dollar deficit but it was 30 billion in year one and guess what they initially blamed the extra 20 billion on the cpc and some on here bought it. As for the debt I agree but it's exactly the same way the BC liberals and BC ndp balance budgets. No, no major energy player landlocks their oil especially when they have 3 oceans and the biggest coast lines in the world. Energy east was a brilliant idea and JT and the liberals killed that. EE was DOA. We've been over this so many times, both gov'ts &^@#ed EE up. No, its not 20 billion. But trying to give Harper any credit for having balanced budgets is hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted March 1, 2020 Share Posted March 1, 2020 35 minutes ago, Boudrias said: I would suggest the movement of jobs overseas was a combination of corporations wanting to produce their goods cheaper but it was also SJW who wanted wealth redistribution on a global scale. I would also suggest this is a big reason why people from this camp hate Trump so much. His MAGA movement craps on both these camps. Both Amazon and Walmart are companies that source major portions of their merchandise overseas. They’re also very competitive and have demonstrated significant savings for consumers. How does this all balance out. IMHO it has not benefited the USA enough and is likely the reason why TRUMP has as much support as he does. He took what was a Demo strength and turned it against them. Sadly I agree, I despise Trump greatly and don't believe his lofty claims but Trump has a shelf life. The business model you describe is something I loathe and is here to stay. I realized a long time ago the only real vote that I have is my wallet, and where I choose to spend my money. I am as an individual far too small to enact large scale changes with today's consumerism hence the only (negligible) effect I have is my spending capacity. I do not currently possess the financial means to vastly overpay for ethically/locally produced resources that I consume, but I do my due diligence each time to make sure that I am not buying some knockoff crap produced in some third world country for pennies and sold here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted March 1, 2020 Share Posted March 1, 2020 2 hours ago, Duodenum said: Nope, took that into account and it's exactly what I'm talking about. The more profit = more money for the top by way of stock increases, not by annual salary. One of the ways they do that is to keep expenses down by giving workers as little as they can and actively fighting against worker's rights, benefits, minimum wage increases, etc. It wasn't until recently in the states when big business finally gave in and stopped lobbying against minimum wage increases in the states? Then, almost overnight, they all bumped it up to over 11 per and a lot of them over 13 per. Even big business (especially retailers) and starting to see the benefits of higher wages for low earners. CEOs and owners might see a decrease in their renumeration/stock payouts/profits in the short-term but the increase in disposable income of consumers will make up for it in the long run. You are on to some conspiracy level stuff. No one is out to screw over the lower end people. I just finished pointing out that ceo’s a could take $1 and it would result in less than a dollar per hour raise. I’m not against raising wage but thinking the CEO are part of this plan to keep them low so they themselves can make more is just not realistic. Do you not think financial advisors have not considered the impact of raising wages. Not just on profit but employee productivity, moral and retaining higher talent employees. There’s a reason why fast food companies vary in entry level jobs. The higher you pay, the more supply, the more picky you can be when selecting. Quote IMO, everybody who works has the right to a liveable wage and that, in itself, will reduce the ratio. I hate this statement. It’s so generic. A living wage has so much variance between individuals, locations and personal expectations. It also implies everyone has the right to services just by being born. This entitlement does not keep pushing society forward. it’s an emotional statement the doesn’t take into fact any sort logic. I’m curious as to what yearly salary you think is an average living wage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted March 1, 2020 Share Posted March 1, 2020 8 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: You are on to some conspiracy level stuff. No one is out to screw over the lower end people. I just finished pointing out that ceo’s a could take $1 and it would result in less than a dollar per hour raise. I’m not against raising wage but thinking the CEO are part of this plan to keep them low so they themselves can make more is just not realistic. Do you not think financial advisors have not considered the impact of raising wages. Not just on profit but employee productivity, moral and retaining higher talent employees. There’s a reason why fast food companies vary in entry level jobs. The higher you pay, the more supply, the more picky you can be when selecting. I hate this statement. It’s so generic. A living wage has so much variance between individuals, locations and personal expectations. It also implies everyone has the right to services just by being born. This entitlement does not keep pushing society forward. it’s an emotional statement the doesn’t take into fact any sort logic. I’m curious as to what yearly salary you think is an average living wage. No one is out to screw Joe average individually, but collectively, of course they are. That's capitalism. The growing disparity between rich and poor is hardly a conspiracy theory... In Canada, they already do? Several things in fact... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted March 1, 2020 Share Posted March 1, 2020 Just now, inane said: No one is out to screw Joe average individually, but collectively, of course they are. That's capitalism. The growing disparity between rich and poor is hardly a conspiracy theory... Hahaha is that what you tell yourself as to why you are poor? It’s the mean rich person looking to keep you in poverty, you never stood a chance.. Yeah no, you have no one to blame but yourself for that one. and no that’s not capitalism as all. Free trade. Learn what that means before you start shouting for communism. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted March 1, 2020 Share Posted March 1, 2020 (edited) 4 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: Hahaha is that what you tell yourself as to why you are poor? It’s the mean rich person looking to keep you in poverty, you never stood a chance.. Yeah no, you have no one to blame but yourself for that one. and no that’s not capitalism as all. Free trade. Learn what that means before you start shouting for communism. way to go personal right away? my innocuous post piss you off that much? maybe reflect on that for awhile. edit--and what's with the constant kneejerk idiotic reaction people have like this? oh you have don't have glowing reviews of capitalism therefore you're a communist! that's so incredibly stupid it boggles the mind. Edited March 1, 2020 by inane 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted March 2, 2020 Share Posted March 2, 2020 Just now, inane said: way to go personal right away? my innocuous post piss you off that much? maybe reflect on that for awhile. Right away?. You have proven over time and time again, you are not worth anyone’s time. You bring nothing to contribute to any discussion on this board. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted March 2, 2020 Share Posted March 2, 2020 9 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: Right away?. You have proven over time and time again, you are not worth anyone’s time. You bring nothing to contribute to any discussion on this board. lol oh hi pot. One wonders why you would reply to someone who brings no contribution to the board? Feel free to ignore me but if you're going to reply, perhaps reply to the content? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duodenum Posted March 2, 2020 Share Posted March 2, 2020 59 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: You are on to some conspiracy level stuff. No one is out to screw over the lower end people. I just finished pointing out that ceo’s a could take $1 and it would result in less than a dollar per hour raise. I’m not against raising wage but thinking the CEO are part of this plan to keep them low so they themselves can make more is just not realistic. Do you not think financial advisors have not considered the impact of raising wages. Not just on profit but employee productivity, moral and retaining higher talent employees. There’s a reason why fast food companies vary in entry level jobs. The higher you pay, the more supply, the more picky you can be when selecting. I hate this statement. It’s so generic. A living wage has so much variance between individuals, locations and personal expectations. It also implies everyone has the right to services just by being born. This entitlement does not keep pushing society forward. it’s an emotional statement the doesn’t take into fact any sort logic. I’m curious as to what yearly salary you think is an average living wage. It's not a conspiracy, it's a part of the system. I get why they do it. I could easily increase my own earnings as well with a few changes. If I had a bunch of shareholders up my ass to increase their share price, along with those same share prices being able to easily increase my net worth, it would be very enticing. Is it so generic? The minimum wage is worth less now than it was decades ago. At least that seems to have been rectified a bit, but it still lags. It'd be bad business to not get the most out of your workers at the best price you can possibly get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted March 2, 2020 Share Posted March 2, 2020 31 minutes ago, Duodenum said: It's not a conspiracy, it's a part of the system. I get why they do it. I could easily increase my own earnings as well with a few changes. If I had a bunch of shareholders up my ass to increase their share price, along with those same share prices being able to easily increase my net worth, it would be very enticing. What are you born in the 30's, that's terrible business strategy. No one, especially the CEO's making 10+ million are that dumb to think like that. You can't drop cost without losing quality. Dropping quality reduced profits, no one, the share holders and the CEO do not win in that situation. That's basic economics 101, Supply, demand, and market equilibrium. Don't believe me, try opening up a business, then trying paying them less than your competition is paying them, see how long you are able to retain your employees and see how much profit you are able to make. 31 minutes ago, Duodenum said: Is it so generic? The minimum wage is worth less now than it was decades ago. At least that seems to have been rectified a bit, but it still lags. It'd be bad business to not get the most out of your workers at the best price you can possibly get. IF you don't think it's generic what is that salary? What is living wage? The problem is people trying to live off entery level jobs and not improving their skillset that would demand a higher wage. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted March 2, 2020 Share Posted March 2, 2020 23 minutes ago, Duodenum said: It's not a conspiracy, it's a part of the system. I get why they do it. I could easily increase my own earnings as well with a few changes. If I had a bunch of shareholders up my ass to increase their share price, along with those same share prices being able to easily increase my net worth, it would be very enticing. Is it so generic? The minimum wage is worth less now than it was decades ago. At least that seems to have been rectified a bit, but it still lags. It'd be bad business to not get the most out of your workers at the best price you can possibly get. Increasing the minimum wage hurts small businesses, startups making it easier for big business to corner the market, it seems no matter what capitalism takes its pound of flesh from the little guy. Capitalism isn't perfect, pretending like these problems don't exist when they are affecting the average Joe is what leads to people becoming more susceptible to political propaganda from fascists/communists. We all pay the price for the greed of the few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now