Why Is Labor Force Participation Falling?

[djAdvocate]

Oct 3, 2014 23:05:38 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Oct 3, 2014 20:00:30 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

the average CEO in the US made $150k in 2012.  then there is Romney.

And that is probably true for small businesses-

that is the average, across the board.  but keep in mind that there are over 1M CEO's in the US. 

[djAdvocate]

Oct 4, 2014 5:10:47 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Oct 3, 2014 21:47:32 GMT -5 jkapp said:

I would love to see the minimum wage raised just to see what the pro side will say when they discover they are completely f'ing wroing about its effects...my guess is they'll blame something else for it not having a positive effect (and most likely a negative one).

Making everyone else closer to minimum wage does not make the economic situation any better whatsoever. Its like saying a sinking ship can float again by raising the water level

But what if the minimum wage were raised just to the point that it was equal, indexed for inflation, to the minimum wage of 1969?

that is all most of us are suggesting.  and when i say most, i mean like, 90+% of the adult population.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 4, 2014 5:13:37 GMT -5 Opti said:

FWIW, the average worker makes roughly $50K/year.

There are people who make between $0/year and billions per year.

Not sure how useful a mathematical average is if you really want to

understand what is going on.

i think that is average HOUSEHOLD INCOME, but correct me if i am wrong.

i think the average worker makes about 2/3 of that.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 4, 2014 5:16:46 GMT -5 Opti said:

Wish I could post part of the free Wall Street Journal I started reading.

Apparently income growth in the top earners was even more lop-sided

under Obama(2009 to 2012) than it was under Bush (2001-2007).

116% of the gains went to the top tier.

Yep I  have no idea how that works, but apparently there was a good WSJ article on 9/24,

about the recovery that does not include most people.

that is because Obama has failed to restore the tax rates that existed for the first 3-4 years under Bush.

[Deleted]

Oct 4, 2014 15:21:40 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 3, 2014 23:05:38 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

And that is probably true for small businesses-

that is the average, across the board.  but keep in mind that there are over 1M CEO's in the US. 

I'm still curious why CNN thinks it's $11.4 million average yet you think it's $150K... (source link to CNN in my previous post)

[djAdvocate]

Oct 4, 2014 17:13:20 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Oct 4, 2014 15:21:40 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

that is the average, across the board.  but keep in mind that there are over 1M CEO's in the US. 

I'm still curious why CNN thinks it's $11.4 million average yet you think it's $150K... (source link to CNN in my previous post)

because they forget to say "fortune 500" in front of CEO pay.  that omission is one of my pet peeves.

[Opti]

DJ, I was speaking to a visitor today who was born around when I was.

He said the reason UE rates look so great is most folk have aged off UE

benefits and therefore aren't counted in the statistics. He said he has a friend

(or brother), can't remember which, who said the true unemployment rate

is actually worse today than it was 5 years ago.

[Opti]

Think of it this way, its like reporting polling results only based on

who answers the phone. No normalization.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 4, 2014 18:06:32 GMT -5 Opti said:

DJ, I was speaking to a visitor today who was born around when I was.

He said the reason UE rates look so great is most folk have aged off UE

benefits and therefore aren't counted in the statistics. He said he has a friend

(or brother), can't remember which, who said the true unemployment rate

is actually worse today than it was 5 years ago.

UE has been calculated the same way for many years.  if you are saying that the LTE are having trouble finding work that is not really true.  most of the gains in employment in the last year have been from the LTUE

www.nytimes.com/2014/07/26/business/economy/a-drop-in-the-long-term-unemployed.html?_r=0

[Angel!]

Oct 4, 2014 17:13:20 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Oct 4, 2014 15:21:40 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

that is the average, across the board.  but keep in mind that there are over 1M CEO's in the US. 

I'm still curious why CNN thinks it's $11.4 million average yet you think it's $150K... (source link to CNN in my previous post)

Per the article

Chief executives at some of the nation's largest companies earned an average of $12.9 million in total pay last year

If you read on they are only using 300 companies.

Pretty easy to see why the numbers are different.

[Angel!]

Oct 4, 2014 18:06:32 GMT -5 Opti said:

DJ, I was speaking to a visitor today who was born around when I was.

He said the reason UE rates look so great is most folk have aged off UE

benefits and therefore aren't counted in the statistics. He said he has a friend

(or brother), can't remember which, who said the true unemployment rate

is actually worse today than it was 5 years ago.

Calculated unemployment has nothing to do with the number of people collecting unemployment. Anyone who claims otherwise has no clue what they are talking about.

[Deleted]

Oct 5, 2014 6:13:17 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Oct 4, 2014 17:13:20 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I'm still curious why CNN thinks it's $11.4 million average yet you think it's $150K... (source link to CNN in my previous post)

Per the article

Chief executives at some of the nation's largest companies earned an average of $12.9 million in total pay last year

If you read on they are only using 300 companies.

Pretty easy to see why the numbers are different.

If you read the article you must have seen that the 300 companies are for a different report.

(I will admit that the CNN link does hide in the story that they only use the "Fortune 500" to calculate the "average"... so it's not as "all encompassing" as the headline would lead one to believe)

[Deleted]

Oct 3, 2014 17:43:11 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 3, 2014 14:39:38 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

A friend of mine owns a medium sized car rental company. He buys approximately $50,000,000 of GM product every year along with an equal amount ($) of Chrysler and Ford. Currently the GM vehicles are down to a non rent-able status at the lowest % followed by Chrysler and then Ford. These are fleet cars with not a lot of options, so maybe they are not that comparable to general public sales. The differences in numbers of out of service cars is also only a .1% or so between manufacturers. That is what I use for a scale on how much a vehicle is worth. I don't know your information source and what you regard as a troublesome vehicle. (or it sucks )

i was just following your lead with GM, actually.  if you don't think they suck, then everything is just ducky, i guess.

for the record, we bought a Chevy Truck as a company truck new in 1995.  it has given us a bit of trouble- some weird brake stuff and regular O2 sensor trouble, but other than that it has been pretty reliable.

I don't know how ducky they are, but from a simple utilitarian transportation point of view, they deliver what I'd expect for the price. I have no vehicle image/status to maintain and still drive my 1990 diesel Chevy p/u. The antique plates go on next year with only 50,000 original miles. It really attracts a lot of attention when I drive into town as it's in show truck condition. It's like putting on your favorite pair of shoes, after driving it for 25 years.

[Deleted]

Oct 3, 2014 18:21:52 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 3, 2014 18:09:51 GMT -5 The Captain said:

May we explore this a bit more?  Is it possible that there is a "tipping point" as which the increases in productivity can no longer be allocated to a decent number of workers because there are significantly fewer of them needed?

The above graph only has about 30 years of a matching trend before it levels out.  Then there is a 30 year trend of flat hourly compensation.  Who is to say which trend is the "correct" one.    I know it's impossible to get a comparable but I'd LOVE to see how the above chart would look from the agrarian society of the 1800's to the mid 1900's.

Richard Wolff has done some good work in this area.  it is a lot to pour through, but he has documented it.

In the early 80's we shifted from a production based society to an information based society.  Problem is, computers can do most of the information storage and manipulation.  

you are absolutely correct.  "stock clerk" used to be a paying job.  why?  because you had to ANALYZE CONSUMPTION PATTERNS of shoppers.  now, the cash register does not only the analysis, but the reordering based on that analysis.  the only thing a stock clerk does is to restock.  so those jobs vanished.  and that is absolutely a valid objection to my analysis.  and truthfully, i have no answer for that one.  computers have displaced the MINDS of people (which were worth something), rendering them to robotic tasks like restocking (which is not)- and that is INDEED a megatrend, and it is INDEED part of this problem.

HOWEVER- what i am asking you to do is see beyond that, from PROBLEM to IMPACT OF PROBLEM.  you have identified the problem, i believe.  however, here are the CONSEQUENCES of that problem.

when this problem started to arise in the 70's, the first change that came was that women put off childbearing and went to work.  and when they finally had children, they put them in daycare (being no longer able to stay at home and take care of them, due to the expectation of a "better life").  so, the two income family blossomed and grew in the 70's and 80's.  so, even though WAGES stagnated, because of the rise of HOUSEHOLD income, the problem was forestalled for another couple of decades. 

when women had reached saturation in the workplace in 2000, this trend stopped.  so, family incomes stalled.  in order to keep family CASH FLOW growing, people started borrowing.  the first casualty was SAVINGS, which fell from the historic norm of 8% to a record low of basically zero in the Naughties.  when that dried up, people started borrowing against HOME EQUITY, using the HELOC.  then HOME PRICES CRASHED.

this brings us to the financial crash of 2007/8/9.  and if you are wondering WHY this recovery is so slow, it is because there is NOTHING LEFT THAT PEOPLE CAN DO TO INCREASE HOUSEHOLD INCOME ANY MORE.  i think that the drop in WFP is an INDICATION that this reality has set in.  people are accepting that the 200 year ride is OVER.  they are accepting that the American Dream, that we will be better off than our parents, is DEAD.

now, personally, i don't think that it HAS to be that way.  the only thing we need to change is how we think about the problem.  but everyone is so convinced that it is over (my thread on record employment was thoroughly depressing in this respect) that it probably is.  it is too bad.  the most resourceful nation on Earth has managed to convince themselves that the land of opportunity is dead and gone.  it really isn't.  but believing something is just as good as it being true, in most cases.

Wow, I posted almost exactly the same thing back on MSN Market talk when it still existed. In late 2009 I think. I was thoroughly lambasted for it, for being too negative. I can only guess more people are starting to agree with that progression of events as you even got "likes" for it. I even went a little farther in predicting increases in multi-generational households to boost household income.  (Something that can be done)  Probably too soon to verify if that's a trend in the making. It's also why I feel the WFP affects the economy. (just can't let that go )

[OldCoyote]

Over the last four years removed thirty stores,  Over the same time I have built two for customers.

In the future I don't see any new store coming up,  more stores closing down.

I have kept track of some of the employees and owners.  But many of those have just disappeared 

[Opti]

Oct 4, 2014 21:25:04 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 4, 2014 18:06:32 GMT -5 Opti said:

DJ, I was speaking to a visitor today who was born around when I was.

He said the reason UE rates look so great is most folk have aged off UE

benefits and therefore aren't counted in the statistics. He said he has a friend

(or brother), can't remember which, who said the true unemployment rate

is actually worse today than it was 5 years ago.

UE has been calculated the same way for many years.  if you are saying that the LTE are having trouble finding work that is not really true.  most of the gains in employment in the last year have been from the LTUE

www.nytimes.com/2014/07/26/business/economy/a-drop-in-the-long-term-unemployed.html?_r=0

Models become less useful when the conditions they are reporting on

change dramatically. This is one of those cases.

When we had the credit crisis, those in the know knew it was bad.

Those relying on old mortgage repayment models and modeling how

consumers used to pay mortgages, rent, cars, and CCs were very wrong

on how it unfolded. Since I was one of the people their model failed to

take into account, I knew how it was going to unfold way before they did.

There are too many people still looking for work and under -employed way

under your 50% threshold. I might make 10% of what I made in 2003.

I am not alone. PSGCNJ which is the organization for professionals employed

and unemployed, we are seeing people cycle in and out over its creation.

Many jobs are contract. Many have no benefits. Quite a few professionals

have given up if near enough retirement age, developed serious health

issues or work retail typically less than 35 to 40 hours a week.

I don't know all the details about all of their job searches, however, having

worked with them in an organization that is now a full fledged 501 3c, if the

problem was merely talent and attitude, they would have that 50 to 150% of

former pay unlike what they are living right now, today.

[Opti]

OT, isn't that special. I cut and paste a leaf jpeg into the background

for a PB avatar and somehow the computer lepracauns decided it

needed to be something else.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 4, 2014 5:10:47 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Oct 3, 2014 21:47:32 GMT -5 jkapp said:

I would love to see the minimum wage raised just to see what the pro side will say when they discover they are completely f'ing wroing about its effects...my guess is they'll blame something else for it not having a positive effect (and most likely a negative one).

Making everyone else closer to minimum wage does not make the economic situation any better whatsoever. Its like saying a sinking ship can float again by raising the water level

But what if the minimum wage were raised just to the point that it was equal, indexed for inflation, to the minimum wage of 1969?

i just had a funny thought, dem.  what if we made a "maximum wage" of $1M. 

[djAdvocate]

Oct 5, 2014 19:09:11 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Oct 5, 2014 6:13:17 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Per the article
If you read on they are only using 300 companies.

Pretty easy to see why the numbers are different.

If you read the article you must have seen that the 300 companies are for a different report.

(I will admit that the CNN link does hide in the story that they only use the "Fortune 500" to calculate the "average"... so it's not as "all encompassing" as the headline would lead one to believe)

the MSM does this ALL the time.  it is so lazy it is infuriating.  how long does it take to say Fortune500 CEO pay rather than CEO pay?

[djAdvocate]

Oct 6, 2014 11:20:17 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Oct 3, 2014 18:21:52 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

you are absolutely correct.  "stock clerk" used to be a paying job.  why?  because you had to ANALYZE CONSUMPTION PATTERNS of shoppers.  now, the cash register does not only the analysis, but the reordering based on that analysis.  the only thing a stock clerk does is to restock.  so those jobs vanished.  and that is absolutely a valid objection to my analysis.  and truthfully, i have no answer for that one.  computers have displaced the MINDS of people (which were worth something), rendering them to robotic tasks like restocking (which is not)- and that is INDEED a megatrend, and it is INDEED part of this problem.

HOWEVER- what i am asking you to do is see beyond that, from PROBLEM to IMPACT OF PROBLEM.  you have identified the problem, i believe.  however, here are the CONSEQUENCES of that problem.

when this problem started to arise in the 70's, the first change that came was that women put off childbearing and went to work.  and when they finally had children, they put them in daycare (being no longer able to stay at home and take care of them, due to the expectation of a "better life").  so, the two income family blossomed and grew in the 70's and 80's.  so, even though WAGES stagnated, because of the rise of HOUSEHOLD income, the problem was forestalled for another couple of decades. 

when women had reached saturation in the workplace in 2000, this trend stopped.  so, family incomes stalled.  in order to keep family CASH FLOW growing, people started borrowing.  the first casualty was SAVINGS, which fell from the historic norm of 8% to a record low of basically zero in the Naughties.  when that dried up, people started borrowing against HOME EQUITY, using the HELOC.  then HOME PRICES CRASHED.

this brings us to the financial crash of 2007/8/9.  and if you are wondering WHY this recovery is so slow, it is because there is NOTHING LEFT THAT PEOPLE CAN DO TO INCREASE HOUSEHOLD INCOME ANY MORE.  i think that the drop in WFP is an INDICATION that this reality has set in.  people are accepting that the 200 year ride is OVER.  they are accepting that the American Dream, that we will be better off than our parents, is DEAD.

now, personally, i don't think that it HAS to be that way.  the only thing we need to change is how we think about the problem.  but everyone is so convinced that it is over (my thread on record employment was thoroughly depressing in this respect) that it probably is.  it is too bad.  the most resourceful nation on Earth has managed to convince themselves that the land of opportunity is dead and gone.  it really isn't.  but believing something is just as good as it being true, in most cases.

Wow, I posted almost exactly the same thing back on MSN Market talk when it still existed. In late 2009 I think. I was thoroughly lambasted for it, for being too negative. I can only guess more people are starting to agree with that progression of events as you even got "likes" for it. I even went a little farther in predicting increases in multi-generational households to boost household income.  (Something that can be done)  Probably too soon to verify if that's a trend in the making. It's also why I feel the WFP affects the economy. (just can't let that go )

sure you can. 

[djAdvocate]

Oct 8, 2014 15:20:57 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

i just had a funny thought, dem. what if we made a "maximum wage" of $1M.

You'd probably see a lot more part time CEO's at large companies.  They're willing to work basically 24/7 for $50M a year or whatever.  For $1M a year.. probably not so much.

It would kill investment depending on how it's worded.  Angel investors are willing to inject $2M or whatever into a startup company, because they're hoping to make 5-10 times that when it goes public.  If they were capped at making $1M a year, they're not going to lend the way they do now.

The consequences, some of which we won't even think about at the time, will be just as far reaching as raising minimum wage to $15 an hour, or so I'd imagine.

there is a difference between investment income and salaries. 

[djAdvocate]

Oct 8, 2014 16:54:20 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

there is a difference between investment income and salaries.

Then it would have no impact whatsoever since most people that make over $1M a year get it through stock options.

then i think we should do it. 

[Deleted]

Oct 8, 2014 17:20:56 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 8, 2014 16:54:20 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Then it would have no impact whatsoever since most people that make over $1M a year get it through stock options.

then i think we should do it. 

The problem is... those people that don't currently do stock options but make over $1M would START doing stock options. If it's going to affect their income the rich WILL find a loophole (that's what they pay those $500 an hour law firms and accounting firms for...).

[djAdvocate]

Oct 8, 2014 18:12:49 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Oct 8, 2014 17:20:56 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

then i think we should do it. 

The problem is... those people that don't currently do stock options but make over $1M would START doing stock options. If it's going to affect their income the rich WILL find a loophole (that's what they pay those $500 an hour law firms and accounting firms for...).

i was kidding, Richard.  it is pointless to try to stop the rich from making money.  which is why the government has resorted to taxing the crap out of them instead.

[Deleted]

I still say don't try and stop them... just tie in all other payroll TO them.

Cap the difference between the CEO and the lowest paid employee.... say... no more than 40x's lowest employee annual salary ($25,000 employee pay x 40 = $1,000,000 CEO pay).

That way they can make as much as they want... but the more they want to make, the more they have to pay.

So... A CEO that wants to make 50,000,000 a year would have to pay his/her lowest employee not less than 1,250,000. Completely his/her call.

Another idea: It could also be indexed. Starting at $1,000,000 the CEO can earn no more than 40x his/her lowest employee (that's $25,000) then for every Million, the multiplier could go up by adding "the number of Millions" to the "40x" base (want to make $2,000,000? Have to be no more than 42x lowest employee... Want to make 5 Million? have to be no more than 45x lowest employee... Want to make $50 Million? Have to be no more than 90x lowest employee... Et cetera).

[djAdvocate]

Oct 8, 2014 20:06:09 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I still say don't try and stop them... just tie in all other payroll TO them.

Cap the difference between the CEO and the lowest paid employee.... say... no more than 40x's lowest employee annual salary ($25,000 employee pay x 40 = $1,000,000 CEO pay).

That way they can make as much as they want... but the more they want to make, the more they have to pay.

So... A CEO that wants to make 50,000,000 a year would have to pay his/her lowest employee not less than 1,250,000. Completely his/her call.

Another idea: It could also be indexed. Starting at $1,000,000 the CEO can earn no more than 40x his/her lowest employee (that's $25,000) then for every Million, the multiplier could go up by adding "the number of Millions" to the "40x" base (want to make $2,000,000? Have to be no more than 42x lowest employee... Want to make 5 Million? have to be no more than 45x lowest employee... Want to make $50 Million? Have to be no more than 90x lowest employee... Et cetera).

there is a book called Small Is Beautiful that i read when i was probably (14) or something.  written by a guy named EF Schumacher.  probably a commie, for all i know.  but i remember what he recommended, and that was 7:1.  i have followed that ratio ever since. 

[Deleted]

Oct 8, 2014 20:50:35 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 8, 2014 20:06:09 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I still say don't try and stop them... just tie in all other payroll TO them.

Cap the difference between the CEO and the lowest paid employee.... say... no more than 40x's lowest employee annual salary ($25,000 employee pay x 40 = $1,000,000 CEO pay).

That way they can make as much as they want... but the more they want to make, the more they have to pay.

So... A CEO that wants to make 50,000,000 a year would have to pay his/her lowest employee not less than 1,250,000. Completely his/her call.

Another idea: It could also be indexed. Starting at $1,000,000 the CEO can earn no more than 40x his/her lowest employee (that's $25,000) then for every Million, the multiplier could go up by adding "the number of Millions" to the "40x" base (want to make $2,000,000? Have to be no more than 42x lowest employee... Want to make 5 Million? have to be no more than 45x lowest employee... Want to make $50 Million? Have to be no more than 90x lowest employee... Et cetera).

there is a book called Small Is Beautiful that i read when i was probably (14) or something.  written by a guy named EF Schumacher.  probably a commie, for all i know.  but i remember what he recommended, and that was 7:1.  i have followed that ratio ever since. 

If it was going to be incrementally done, by supervisory level... I might agree to a low differential (I'd make it no more than 3:1 though)

That would be lowest employee = 1, his/her supervisor =3x, his/her supervisor =6x"the original 1", his/her supervisor 9x"the original 1", and so on, and so forth (I'd also mandate a limit to the number of "steps" between "lowest employee" and "CEO"... otherwise a smart CEO could insulate him/her-self with bogus "supervisory positions" between him/her-self and the lowest employee... not sure how many steps that would be... maybe W steps for under 50 employees, X steps for 51-500 employees, Y steps for 501-5000 employees, Z steps for 5001 employees and up).

ETA: make it like a Military Grade styled chart... not pay equivalent... but some sort of ranking. For example: E1 (employee, Grade 1) being the lowest, then E2 being above that, E3 being above both and so on in the E's (but with a mandated W, X, Y or Z ceiling... depending upon the number of company employees), then M1 being the lowest management (store manager), but above "employees", M2 being above that (City Manager), M3 being above that (District Manager), M4 being above that (Regional Manager), then CO1 (corporate officer, lowest grade), CO2 (Corporate Officer Grade 2), CO3 (Corporate Officer Grade 3) and so on (with the same W, X, Y, and Z limitations).

edited to fix presentation error

[djAdvocate]

Oct 8, 2014 21:03:50 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Oct 8, 2014 20:50:35 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

there is a book called Small Is Beautiful that i read when i was probably (14) or something.  written by a guy named EF Schumacher.  probably a commie, for all i know.  but i remember what he recommended, and that was 7:1.  i have followed that ratio ever since. 

If it was going to be incrementally done, by supervisory level... I might agree to a low differential (I'd make it no more than 3:1 though)

our ratio here is about 3.5, i think. 

That would be lowest employee = 1, his/her supervisor =3x, his/her supervisor =3x"that", his/her supervisor 3x"that", and so on, and so forth (I'd also mandate a limit to the number of "steps" between "lowest employee" and "CEO"... otherwise a smart CEO could insulate him/her-self with bogus "supervisory positions" between him/her-self and the lowest employee... not sure how many steps that would be... maybe W steps for under 50 employees, X steps for 51-500 employees, Y steps for 501-5000 employees, Z steps for 5001 employees and up).

Schumacher argues against large heirarchical structures for a variety of humanistic reasons.  the argument is quite appealing.

ETA: make it like a Military Grade styled chart... not pay equivalent... but some sort of ranking. For example: E1 (employee, Grade 1) being the lowest, then E2 being above that, E3 being above both and so on in the E's (but with a mandated W, X, Y or Z ceiling... depending upon the number of company employees), then M1 being the lowest management (store manager), but above "employees", M2 being above that (City Manager), M3 being above that (District Manager), M4 being above that (Regional Manager), then CO1 (corporate officer, lowest grade), CO2 (Corporate Officer Grade 2), CO3 (Corporate Officer Grade 3) and so on (with the same W, X, Y, and Z limitations).

i am not a fan of big organizations, for a variety of reasons.  that doesn't mean that i don't see ANY need for them.  i would prefer to frame the argument this way: that they should be avoided unless otherwise impossible.

[Deleted]

Oct 8, 2014 21:33:54 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

If it was going to be incrementally done, by supervisory level... I might agree to a low differential (I'd make it no more than 3:1 though)

That would be lowest employee = 1, his/her supervisor =3x, his/her supervisor =6x"the original 1", his/her supervisor 9x"the original 1", and so on, and so forth (I'd also mandate a limit to the number of "steps" between "lowest employee" and "CEO"... otherwise a smart CEO could insulate him/her-self with bogus "supervisory positions" between him/her-self and the lowest employee... not sure how many steps that would be... maybe W steps for under 50 employees, X steps for 51-500 employees, Y steps for 501-5000 employees, Z steps for 5001 employees and up).

ETA: make it like a Military Grade styled chart... not pay equivalent... but some sort of ranking. For example: E1 (employee, Grade 1) being the lowest, then E2 being above that, E3 being above both and so on in the E's (but with a mandated W, X, Y or Z ceiling... depending upon the number of company employees), then M1 being the lowest management (store manager), but above "employees", M2 being above that (City Manager), M3 being above that (District Manager), M4 being above that (Regional Manager), then CO1 (corporate officer, lowest grade), CO2 (Corporate Officer Grade 2), CO3 (Corporate Officer Grade 3) and so on (with the same W, X, Y, and Z limitations).

This system would be wicked easy to game. By the time lobbyists for large companies got done telling their reps how to write it, the resulting legislation would require no changes whatsoever to anyone's pay. Small businesses would be exempt anyway, so it wouldn't matter to the majority of the workforce.

What I envisioned would have been the end result... not the "pre-game" version that you suggest they could get reworked the way THEY want.

edited to fix presentation error

[Deleted]

Oct 8, 2014 22:38:21 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

What I envisioned would have been the end result... not the "pre-game" version that you suggest they could get reworked the way THEY want.

Even your version would seem to have a lot steps and a pretty involved hierarchy, with the pay able to triple from step to step. By the time you get to the top the salary cap would be humongous.

You pointed out an error in the way I presented it. That's completely my fault.

It's not supposed to triple every step. It's supposed to "add another 3 each step"... so the first step would be 3:1, the next would be 6:1 (the ORIGINAL "1", not the previous step), the next after that 9:1 (the ORIGINAL "1", not the previous step), and next after that 12:1 (the ORIGINAL "1", not the previous step), and so on, and so forth.

Mea culpa on poor presentation.

ETA: I'll edit in that correction.