White Collar vs Blue Collar...
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,720
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by gosixers215,Jan 10 2008, 10:50 AM
Interesting article somewhat related to this topic:
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Inves...rAnHourJob.aspx
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Inves...rAnHourJob.aspx
I wonder if it's possible to put a hidden webcam in their offices? Wanna know what the hack they do to deserve that kind of money
.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,720
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by zeiss,Jan 10 2008, 11:37 AM
The New York Times has written several articles about this recently, as executive compensation since the 1970s has risen from about 11 times the average industrial wage to something like 100 times the average industrial wage, and usually has no relationship to how well the company is doing. This is in contrast to executive salaries in most European and Asian countries, which are far closer to average industrial wages. Very few companies resist this -- I have particular admiration for the President of Costco, who, with a salary of $300,000 a year earns the highest compensation in his company. Costco is a huge company -- the biggest rival to Walmart, yet the company's policy is that most executives are vastly overpaid. They have no problem hiring quality management at lower salaries, and their unionized workforce earns many times the salaries of the non-unionized workforce at WalMart.
Also, while average family income has stagnated in that period of time that executive compensation has skyrocketed, the percentage of the total national income that goes to the top 1% has increased astronomically, with the top 1% of the population receiving something over 20% of the total income. And they get to keep more of it, as taxes are lower or non-existent on capital gains, inheritance, and stock option bonuses, which is of benefit primarily to the wealthy. This is a serious problem as increasing inequities are polarizing society. Other countries do a much better job of this by redistributing wealth through income taxation and better subsidies (such as free health care, child day care and income supplements for low income people). More progressive taxation policies used to be done in the U.S. Those who argue that prosperity works on a trickle down manner in a low tax environment will have a hard time convincing me, since the highest level of income inequity since the Stock Market Crash of 1929 exists in the U.S. today. During the period of prosperity of the 1950s and 60s, income inequity in the U.S. was at its lowest point in the 20th century -- this at a time when the highest income tax rate was 95%! There is something seriously wrong with the system in the U.S., and it goes way beyond executives ordering stone crab claws.
Zeiss
Also, while average family income has stagnated in that period of time that executive compensation has skyrocketed, the percentage of the total national income that goes to the top 1% has increased astronomically, with the top 1% of the population receiving something over 20% of the total income. And they get to keep more of it, as taxes are lower or non-existent on capital gains, inheritance, and stock option bonuses, which is of benefit primarily to the wealthy. This is a serious problem as increasing inequities are polarizing society. Other countries do a much better job of this by redistributing wealth through income taxation and better subsidies (such as free health care, child day care and income supplements for low income people). More progressive taxation policies used to be done in the U.S. Those who argue that prosperity works on a trickle down manner in a low tax environment will have a hard time convincing me, since the highest level of income inequity since the Stock Market Crash of 1929 exists in the U.S. today. During the period of prosperity of the 1950s and 60s, income inequity in the U.S. was at its lowest point in the 20th century -- this at a time when the highest income tax rate was 95%! There is something seriously wrong with the system in the U.S., and it goes way beyond executives ordering stone crab claws.
Zeiss
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 422
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Penforhire,Jan 10 2008, 08:28 AM
Hey! I'm white collar. Where's my $200 bottle of vino? I need to work where you work!
Not like that everywhere but some inequities are inevitable. We had a bad year a while back but the top execs got new laptops and some of the company cars got traded in for new (on their normal rotation, I think every four years?). Worth a class war? Not really.
Not like that everywhere but some inequities are inevitable. We had a bad year a while back but the top execs got new laptops and some of the company cars got traded in for new (on their normal rotation, I think every four years?). Worth a class war? Not really.
Not sure where I would fall.
My boss pays himself $340 an hour. That is just pay not other items like free gas at the co pump. Add in all the perks would guess it is clsoer to 370 to 400 an hour.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 6,429
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by Ubetit,Jan 10 2008, 01:01 PM
It is just as bad in small business where the majority owner makes a ton more than the other employees or minority owners.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 8,504
Likes: 0
Welcome to the jungle baby!
I've seen blue collar that made a LOT more than white collar. I've seen staggeringly lazy white and blue. White seems to get away with more, is less mundane, and slightly more control over the work. Blue doesn't get the company credit card, so its a bit harder to go for the crab legs...lol.
Its still a relatively free market, don't like the company's rules and pay, leave.
I've seen blue collar that made a LOT more than white collar. I've seen staggeringly lazy white and blue. White seems to get away with more, is less mundane, and slightly more control over the work. Blue doesn't get the company credit card, so its a bit harder to go for the crab legs...lol.
Its still a relatively free market, don't like the company's rules and pay, leave.
