|
|
Post by nephillymike on Jul 2, 2023 18:02:50 GMT -5
I have some time for a few days and there are a few what I consider common sense proposals that I think are sorely needed to get us pointed in the right direction. Given it’s close to the celebration of our independence, it is an appropriate time. If I ran with these as part of my platform, they’d probably assassinate my ass, but they didn’t get Trump yet so maybe I have a better chance than I think. I may have mentioned one or two in passing in other posts over the years but here goes:
1.Create a new news network. Insist on the “fair and balanced” that used to be Fox’s mantra before they became corrupt. I’d have discussion of the important issues of the day with equal time to both “sides”. Have it moderated to prevent talking over and drowning out others’ opinions. I’d limit the theatrics and stick to the facts and opinions. I’d have them air a day after they were taped and I’d insist on fact checks before the episodes aired. This way everyone would be on notice that it was no bullshit. If one side said MD was a genius who had all of the answers, there would be another side with equal time to voice their opinion of how much of an idiot he was. Old fashioned news reporting where you aren’t bought by anyone like todays outlets are.This would force our country out of their circle jerk groups. Give them the courage required to promote and protect our major right and liberty of free speech. Our society has lost it’s intellectual courage. Everyone is afraid to hear what the other side has to say for fear of being wrong. We’ve become a bunch of pussies. The stuff me and my college roommates used to stay up until early morning hours arguing about is not allowed today. It takes courage to protect the right of free speech as sometimes it will be the speech you don't want to hear. Man up America!
2.Demand independence of our Federal politicians in appearance and in fact. What do I mean? Did you ever wonder why politicians leave office very wealthy, where if you just ad up their annual salaries less living expenses it would seem impossible? They are bought and corrupt that is why. They are not independent. When I was an auditor in public accounting after I graduated college, we needed to be independent in appearance and reality. We were not allowed to invest in companies we audited and being in the largest a accounting firm in the world at the time, that was a vast list. We had to take ethics courses and there was license revocation if you were caught in violation. If a 22 year old staff accountant in public accounting needs to be independent, then I am sure as hell going to demand that of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the federal government at a minimum. They would be forbidden from investing in individual companies. They could all participate in the growth of the stock and bond markets by investing in index funds, but not direct investment of specific firms.
3.Demand transparency in the cost of any legislation proposed by Congress. What do I mean? If I want to invest $500 in a mutual fund, the fund company is required to give me a prospectus that tells me all about the risks, costs, returns expenses etc. Any proposed law would have a prospectus document that would be posted that would detail the costs, returns assumptions etc, BEFORE it is allowed to be voted on. There would be an independent group or firm that would attest to the assumptions contained in the document. The cost per taxpayer and per citizen would be clearly stated. Just like they have dissenting and affirmative opinions for Supreme Court verdicts, have the same thing on these bills. One person for and one against and make them explain why.
In the same thought, once a year, a senior member of Congress would present the financials of the country to its citizens. Show where the money is spent and compare our income and assets and liabilities and net deficits to prior years and explain what has changed. Do it the night before the State of the Union. No need to clap and pat yourself on the back like they do at the SOTU. Just the facts. Can even open it up to a few questions, from ”both sides”.
4.Our wealth is significantly more skewed in this country then it was forty+ years ago. Adjusted for inflation, from 1978-2021 real growth in compensation has grown as follows:
CEOs = +1,460%
Stock Market = +1,065%
Top 0.1% paid workers =+ 385%
Average US worker = +18%
In a boom period where efficiency of the US companies and workers has grown more than ever, it is clear that the gains are not shared equitably. I have an idea of what to do, but it would need tinkering and needs to be modeled. One of the best avenues for the “common folk” to grow assets has been the 401k plan that have become popular over the last thirty years as traditional pensions have faded (unless you work for governments who don’t have to have assets on the books to pay for future pension payments but I digress). For establishing a 401k plan, the company gets a tax break for the contributions it makes but the owners and highly compensated employees and common folks get to stock away big time bucks and get a tax break individually while doing so. The highly compensated folks have the means to sock away a lot more than the regular folk but it is generally good for all. However, there are tests of top heavy and participation that need to be met in order for the tax deduction for the company and for the highly compensated folks to be able to enjoy the benefits. If they fail those tests, they can rectify it by either the highly comp people returning some of their contributions OR put money in the common folks account to make the non highly compensated folks % where they need to be to pas the test and keep the plan in compliance and allows all to participate in the tax breaks. I propose doing something similar with compensation. Decide what % of total compensation is permissible to go to the top x% of the employees as a factor of the total compensation of the other employees and do top heavy and participation tests on compensation. If they are within the parameters, the a tax deduction for salaries paid for all employees is allowed. If they are out of whack they can rectify it by either returning some salary of the top x% to the company, or they can pay more to the other employees to get the %’s in line. Just like the 401k scenario, I am using the ability to get a tax deduction as an incentive to better distribute actual income. By effecting actual income, it is 5-10x more impactful than messing with tax rates. Focus on compensation rather than tax rates
5.Change the paradigm on attacking poverty. We hear too much about race and not enough about qualitative criteria. The real major cause of poverty and crime isn’t race or neighborhood, or school systems or police. It’s the family unit. With 70%, 60% and 30% of kids in black, Hispanic and white families being born into single parent homes, we lack the family structure we once had to properly raise kids and give them a good chance to succeed. The success sequence needs to be taught and implemented:
-finish high school
-get a full time job after high school
-get married BEFORE you have children
do all three of these reasonable things and your chance at being poor is less than 3%. We need to focus on what needs to be done to promote this behavior and the two parent household.
|
|
|
|
Post by One on Jul 4, 2023 9:20:48 GMT -5
I've heard arguments for and against the move to call an Article V convention of states. I know there's risk, but I'm in favor of taking it and attempting to resolve some of the issues which are facilitating the abuse of the Constitution. For me, the first and most important key is an Amendment mandating term limits for members of the Senate and House. Professional politicians are largely out of touch with their constituents and are controlled by their parties. It seems a group of Republicans are trying to change that, but when the party leaders control contributions there's an inherent problem. Democrats almost invariably tow the party line, and I doubt it's because they all think alike.
Everyone knows the mainstream, legacy media is biased and corrupted. Still, they watch and read. When talking to leftists, I'm always asking why they unswervingly believe people they don't know who have been proven to have lied to them repeatedly. There's never an answer. I'm not sure a new source of accepted unbiased reporting would change that. The people who are enriching the politicians either own or are enriching the media outlets. The liars won't stop lying without consequences, and I'm not sure how to resolve that without further empowering a system thirsty for power and control. The tribes will continue to gravitate to whoever makes them feel righteous.
I think along with term limits we need to get the government out of our schools. If there are schools who want to teach the glory of communism parents should have the ability to send their children to another school without financial penalty. I also think Congress should pass the Mike Rowe Act that would place equal emphasis on trade education, remove government funding from colleges and universities, and either prohibit or monitor colleges and universities from accepting money from foreign entities (we supposedly monitor it now, but it's obviously also corrupted). The rot and corruption has permeated and destroyed our educational system.
Overall, limit and reduce the size and authority of the Federal government and return authority to the states where it belongs. And let's not overlook and/or forget to eliminate electronic voting and limit mail-in voting.
Times yours.
|
|
|
|
Post by nephillymike on Jul 4, 2023 11:18:16 GMT -5
Thanks Z.
If we were able to demand financial independence like auditors need to have, would you think term limits necessary?
Given the current system I think they are. However, if we were able to mandate financial independence, I wouldn’t see the need for kicking folks out of a job that they do well for their constituents. There’s always a learning curve in any job for new hires.
As far as the media go and the new new station, I think that once Americans get used to real discussion and debate, they will opt for that over the corrupt likes of Fox and CNN.
|
|
|
|
Post by One on Jul 4, 2023 16:20:19 GMT -5
If Biden can get away with hiding foreign bribes I'd think most party loyalists can do the same. They've been doing it for decades, probably longer. Create turnover with term limits and find a way to diminish the party's influence/power over their members. I don't trust any of them and I don't know why I'd trust any restraints they'd install. The people need to find the balls to regain the power because those pricks will fight to the death to keep it away from us. Someone may convince me otherwise, but right now term limits is the necessary baseline.
Happy Sedition Day!
|
|
|
|
Post by nephillymike on Jul 4, 2023 18:58:29 GMT -5
I have a prediction on Sleepy Joe.
The Dems will fall out on him, partly because of senility partly because of the brewing crisis.
Joe will come up with an early dementia diagnosis.
They will call off the hounds as it would be in humane tp prosecute a sick man.
Sleepy Joe retires comfortably with millions of pay to play money and no jail time.
|
|
|
|
Post by One on Jul 7, 2023 20:20:20 GMT -5
If there's not a legitimate investigation and he gets off like Hillary, I'm not sure there won't be serious problems. There should be.
|
|
md717
Pro Bowler
Posts: 276
|
Post by md717 on Jul 9, 2023 19:31:44 GMT -5
1.Create a new news network. Insist on the “fair and balanced” that used to be Fox’s mantra before they became corrupt. I’d have discussion of the important issues of the day with equal time to both “sides”. Have it moderated to prevent talking over and drowning out others’ opinions. I’d limit the theatrics and stick to the facts and opinions. I’d have them air a day after they were taped and I’d insist on fact checks before the episodes aired. This way everyone would be on notice that it was no bullshit. If one side said MD was a genius who had all of the answers, there would be another side with equal time to voice their opinion of how much of an idiot he was. Old fashioned news reporting where you aren’t bought by anyone like todays outlets are.This would force our country out of their circle jerk groups. Give them the courage required to promote and protect our major right and liberty of free speech. Our society has lost it’s intellectual courage. Everyone is afraid to hear what the other side has to say for fear of being wrong. We’ve become a bunch of pussies. The stuff me and my college roommates used to stay up until early morning hours arguing about is not allowed today. It takes courage to protect the right of free speech as sometimes it will be the speech you don't want to hear. Man up America! I have a little time . . . well actually, I'm lying. I don't want to do the next thing on my list, so I'm looking to run out the clock before I have to start that unpleasant task. With any luck I'll be too drunk to start on it tonight anymore and it will have to wait for morning. But I'll take a minute to address your first point. Wouldn't it be great if there was a news source that was "Nothing but the facts, ma'am." Joe Friday, clean as a whistle, just reporting what actually happened with no color commentary whatsoever. Can't happen, won't happen. Every human comes at every question and every event with biases of all sorts, and we just aren't capable of filtering them out. We just aren't. Crime scene - 10 witnesses. 10 stories. Some will even disagree as to the race of the perpetrator. I mean it's THAT bad, our perceptions are THAT corrupt and fallible. And the question of "what did you see 10 minutes ago" isn't even political or otherwise emotionally engaging . . . just a factual question of "What the Fuck just happened?" Then if you introduce the lens of what you want to see in a news story, freaking forget it. Now everything goes off the rails. And I AM a genius - I have the paperwork. Just sayin'. No point in giving some schmuck airtime to say otherwise. Like Rush used to say, "It's not bragging if you can do it."  But even so, I'm a biased, flawed genius. The IQ thing is only a measure of horsepower, or calculations per millisecond, if you want to use a computational analogy. If you could just feed really smart people or really powerful AI computers the facts and they would then spit out the right answers for society . . . that would be great. But I have profound disagreements with some really smart people. I think Ben Shapiro is one of the smartest people I've ever had the privilege of listening to or reading. Same with Mark Levin. I can't possibly understand, let alone defend, Ben's decision to be an observant Orthodox Jew. Totally don't get it. Does that reflect on his intellect, or mine? Neither? Do you see what I'm getting at, here? There's nothing that will "force our country out of their circle jerk groups." (I'm terribly offended by your vulgarity, just for the record.) It is WAY too late for that. One side will win, the other will lose. It's that simple. The battle lines have formed, and it's to the death. (Or to the pain, if you're a Princess Bride fan.) Freedom or tyranny. It's that diametrically opposed. I think you have a bit of "rose colored glasses" syndrome on the "good old days" where nobody was "bought." Walter Cronkite was a serious leftist - it's just that there was no one to call him on it. Edward R. Murrow? Sheesh. Back in the "good old days" of straight-up reporting, the only difference was there was not loyal opposition to challenge what the Big Three had to say about the facts, or what they failed to report altogether. So in my opinion, you need to get over this obsession with wanting a pure source of "truth" in the news. There's no Oracle of Omaha. Jesus is not holding forth at the well. Shit happens, and 18 people opine on what exactly happened and what it means. You need to take in various sources and see what the common threads of agreement are, and try to discern what the motives are when there are differences. Setting up a "Ministry of Truth" is not the answer. See Orwell, George "1984." |
|
|
|
Post by nephillymike on Jul 9, 2023 20:03:53 GMT -5
I think you’re closer to being too drunk to attack that last task than you think you are! LOL.
It’s not a ministry of truth.
It’s an open exchange of ideas and debate with some fact checking as teeth.
You are of the opinion that a great % of our people are in irreversible circle jerk groups. Sorry!
I don’t see it that way. I think there is a greater % of people who would welcome “fair and balanced”.
Anyone paying attention these last few years would realize the amount of disinformation on both sides and would be more receptive than during the last few.
I’m not naive enough to think that there isn’t a decent % blinded by the periphery, but I think those looking for free speech and debate are in the majority.
It’s not going to be must see TV or very flashy, but it will get the country debating and listening. Those without an open mind may never come around, but you can’t please them all. It will be a needed improvement.
I had my every so often call out to Bumfuck Pa this weekend and got to talk politics with our good friend. While we don’t see eye to eye on some things, we both seem to want the truth and are interested enough to listen to get there. He’s as old as dirt and I’m not far behind so if two old heads can be open minded, I have faith in the courage of the country.
I hope the boss lady gives you twice the chores tomorrow for drinking on the job tonight. Slacker!
|
|
md717
Pro Bowler
Posts: 276
|
Post by md717 on Jul 10, 2023 21:41:07 GMT -5
I think you’re closer to being too drunk to attack that last task than you think you are! LOL. It’s not a ministry of truth. It’s an open exchange of ideas and debate with some fact checking as teeth. You are of the opinion that a great % of our people are in irreversible circle jerk groups. Sorry! I don’t see it that way. I think there is a greater % of people who would welcome “fair and balanced”. Anyone paying attention these last few years would realize the amount of disinformation on both sides and would be more receptive than during the last few. I’m not naive enough to think that there isn’t a decent % blinded by the periphery, but I think those looking for free speech and debate are in the majority. It’s not going to be must see TV or very flashy, but it will get the country debating and listening. Those without an open mind may never come around, but you can’t please them all. It will be a needed improvement. I had my every so often call out to Bumfuck Pa this weekend and got to talk politics with our good friend. While we don’t see eye to eye on some things, we both seem to want the truth and are interested enough to listen to get there. He’s as old as dirt and I’m not far behind so if two old heads can be open minded, I have faith in the courage of the country. I hope the boss lady gives you twice the chores tomorrow for drinking on the job tonight. Slacker! Oh my goodness. So first of all, it worked. I was mostly sober through my post last evening, but was devastated by the time I was done. I still haven't completed the repulsive task I sought to avoid. With any luck, I never will. I love you, Mike - but yes you ARE that naive. Who do you propose should be the fact checkers? The editorial board at WaPo? We're going to have to fight it out on open forums like this one. That's the only way. |
|
md717
Pro Bowler
Posts: 276
|
Post by md717 on Jul 12, 2023 20:15:41 GMT -5
There are some sources who work pretty hard at being unbiased, in my opinion. Whether they succeed or not is up for debate, of course, but in my opinion they at least work at it.
Those are Bret Baier at 6p on Fox News "Special Report."
Then there's Elizbeth MacDonald on "The Evening Edit" on Fox Business.
And then there's Martha MacCallum on Fox News "The Story" in the mid-afternoon.
I've long ago given up watching anyone on CNN, MSNBC, or the major broadcast networks. If there are folks on those platforms that approach the effort of those I've named in terms of trying to be "Fair and Balanced" I'd be open to hearing about them.
|
|
|
|
Post by nephillymike on Jul 13, 2023 18:49:16 GMT -5
I’ve recently asked a few people who I talk politics with about it. One bleeding heart liberal, one independent and one moderate right and one hardcore right. While we all disagree on a lot , everyone was interested in such a format.
You may remember this back in the day.
Hannity and Combs (sp) was a good segment when it first came out. Then Combs became the token liberal on fair and balanced and they drowned him out and then it became a Farse.
We need discussion
We need debate.
We need honesty.
We need ridicule for bull shit.
We need it in a hurry to try to save this country.
I read my news and don’t listen to the talking heads so I can’t opine on who is out there that’s fair.
What was the horrible task? Evicting a tenant? Cleaning up after a disgusting tenant?
|
|
|
|
Post by nephillymike on Jul 13, 2023 19:55:27 GMT -5
|
|
md717
Pro Bowler
Posts: 276
|
Post by md717 on Jul 13, 2023 20:47:04 GMT -5
I’ve recently asked a few people who I talk politics with about it. One bleeding heart liberal, one independent and one moderate right and one hardcore right. While we all disagree on a lot , everyone was interested in such a format. You may remember this back in the day. Hannity and Combs (sp) was a good segment when it first came out. Then Combs became the token liberal on fair and balanced and they drowned him out and then it became a Farse. We need discussion We need debate. We need honesty. We need ridicule for bull shit. We need it in a hurry to try to save this country. I read my news and don’t listen to the talking heads so I can’t opine on who is out there that’s fair. What was the horrible task? Evicting a tenant? Cleaning up after a disgusting tenant? Very good guess. Yes - it was putting together eviction filings against a tenant. Turns out it was necessary after all. I was hoping the tenant would come through, but it was not to be. Tenants are a couple in their late 30s with two little girls maybe 8 and 10. Very cute little girls, and the whole lot of them live right next door to me where they've been for three years. They moved in a few months into Covid. I knew better, they weren't qualified, they had been homeless, but they and their case worker pled with me to give them a chance and I caved. I was a bit of an emotional mess in those early months, not knowing what would happen to all of the hard work we've done over these past decades. Anyway, everything went well for the first 14 months or so, when male half of couple quit working and hasn't worked since. So now the die is cast, and eventually they will be homeless again. Very difficult, but I have no choice. To the topic at hand - I listen to a lot of news, because I'm on the go a lot and/or at my desk and my ADD requires that something be playing in the background to absorb some of the extra brain energy so that I can focus on the task at hand. But I do read a good bit of news, too. It might surprise you to know that most of the news I read is Liberal in my local paper - AP, WaPo, NYT, and Bloomberg. It's getting harder, as they're getting more and more brazen in their slants. Especially the AP. So we agree at least on this - many voices need to be heard, and debate is important. Truth and honesty is going to be harder to "enforce" - and there I think is where we begin to disagree. We can't set up "referees" who are going to enforce those values like Twitter and Facebook attempted to do through the pandemic and the 2020 election. Through the debate and the airing of many opinions (even dishonest and false ones) the truth will prevail. Even with the attempt to stifle many ideas from 2020 through the present . . . many truths have come to the surface despite the censorship. Not in time, in many cases, but the truth will always rise to the top over time. |
|
|
|
Post by nephillymike on Jul 13, 2023 21:11:39 GMT -5
That sucks about the eviction.
Not too long ago, you seemed pleased about how it all turned out (Covid).
Did you lose a lot of bad debt rents or did the PPP give you enough of a cushion?
|
|
md717
Pro Bowler
Posts: 276
|
Post by md717 on Jul 13, 2023 21:12:52 GMT -5
I read the other four points of your treatise. We have little disagreement on points 2, 3, and 5. Lots of disagreement on #4.
|
|
md717
Pro Bowler
Posts: 276
|
Post by md717 on Jul 13, 2023 21:23:18 GMT -5
That sucks about the eviction. Not too long ago, you seemed pleased about how it all turned out (Covid). Did you lose a lot of bad debt rents or did the PPP give you enough of a cushion? My near emotional meltdown in the early months of Covid was entirely wasted energy. We lost next to nothing in rents owed since March 2020. This was partly luck (lots of "essential" employees amongst our tenants) and partly very good screening of tenants overall pre-Covid. PPP wasn't really part of the rental equation, but our two (non-rental) businesses benefited from that. All in all we were better off economically thanks to Covid - which is crazy, I know. I'm not exactly "pleased" by that, any more than I would be "pleased" if Mrs MD's remaining student loans would be forgiven. Yes, good for us personally in the short run, bad for the country in the long run. Yes, eviction sucks. In 20 something years of managing property, I've been through it maybe half a dozen times. That's in well over 100 unit years. (We have 23 total units now, so we're racking up "Unit Years" at a pretty rapid clip.) But it doesn't suck any less . . . and where there are innocent parties involved (children) it sucks almost more than you can bear. PS - there are some instances in which the tenants' behavior is so egregious and hostile that going through the eviction process is not emotionally difficult, but almost rewarding when justice is achieved. But those are the exception, unfortunately. |
|
|
|
Post by nephillymike on Jul 16, 2023 19:33:15 GMT -5
So Meatloaf said 2 out of 3 ain’t bad.
I wonder if 3 out of 5 would qualify......
You’re moving towards my side on #1. I think I can get you there over time. We can get into specifics on how it would work so that I get the Lancaster County vote. Not sure of the Bumfuck county vote I’m thinking that a few cold ones and I have a chance with that. I need the South a Jersey representative to opine to see what needs to be done to get his vote....
To begin what could be a long discussion on point #4 (knowing your hardcore beliefs) I’ll throw this out to you.
Is a bid with Union labor on a job an example of a capitalistic model of efficient markets? The job could be most things like new construction of a building or maybe post construction services like roofing or post construction services like appliance or furniture installation.
What say you?
|
|
|
|
Post by nephillymike on Jul 18, 2023 19:45:46 GMT -5
|
|
md717
Pro Bowler
Posts: 276
|
Post by md717 on Jul 19, 2023 20:38:12 GMT -5
So Meatloaf said 2 out of 3 ain’t bad. I wonder if 3 out of 5 would qualify...... You’re moving towards my side on #1. I think I can get you there over time. We can get into specifics on how it would work so that I get the Lancaster County vote. Not sure of the Bumfuck county vote I’m thinking that a few cold ones and I have a chance with that. I need the South a Jersey representative to opine to see what needs to be done to get his vote.... To begin what could be a long discussion on point #4 (knowing your hardcore beliefs) I’ll throw this out to you. Is a bid with Union labor on a job an example of a capitalistic model of efficient markets? The job could be most things like new construction of a building or maybe post construction services like roofing or post construction services like appliance or furniture installation. What say you? LOL - you're showing your age with the Meatloaf reference. I remember my first exposure to "Bat Out of Hell" was in late elementary school, and it was on 8-track. And what were the two out of three? "I want you, I need you, but there ain't no way I'm ever gonna love you . . . but don't be sad, two out of three ain't bad." LOL!!! (Not bad from memory!!) So I don't think I understand your question on #4. Efficient markets have as few impediments that are artificially applied as possible. Let's try an example. Suppose that in order to operate a hotdog cart in downtown bumfuck, you have to pay $1,000. Suppose you sell 20 hotdogs per day, 50 weeks per year. So how much do you have to add to your hotdog price to cover the operating permit? What has the average purchaser of your hotdogs gained by paying the extra $XXXX per dog? |
|
|
|
Post by nephillymike on Jul 19, 2023 21:26:00 GMT -5
Good Meatloaf memory.
If I understand where you’re going, is that the $1,000 was an added cost that didn’t provide much value to the end user. This $1,000 is an impediment that is artificially applied and adversely effects the efficiency of the hotdog cart market.
Did I interpret this correctly?
|
|
md717
Pro Bowler
Posts: 276
|
Post by md717 on Jul 20, 2023 19:54:00 GMT -5
Good Meatloaf memory. If I understand where you’re going, is that the $1,000 was an added cost that didn’t provide much value to the end user. This $1,000 is an impediment that is artificially applied and adversely effects the efficiency of the hotdog cart market. Did I interpret this correctly? Yes, I think you did. But I don't think I understood your original question about the union labor bid so I don't know if my example was really relevant. Generally speaking, as I've said a million and a half times here and elsewhere: the free market is the most efficient allocator of resources known to mankind. Don't' make me break out the dissertation on "price gouging." (The summary is "price gouging is good for consumers.") But if you want to try to put a finer point on your question about the union construction bid, I'll give it my best shot. |
|
|
|
Post by nephillymike on Jul 20, 2023 22:04:52 GMT -5
I think we’re on the same page.
A contact that is bid with a requirement of union labor disrupts the efficient markets theory because it removes most of the workers and companies that employ those workers from the bid and the participation in efficient markets at its finest.
Imagine what would happen if each company had a wage setting board governed by a few lower paid workers and the could decide what the starting wages would be for that company. Besides the employees for that company, there would be other board members of lower paid workers of other companies that would sit on that board to decide the starting wages. In a reciprocal arrangement, some lower paid workers of company A would also sit on the wage setting boards of other companies. What would be the result? The result would be the the starting wages of companies all around would increase significantly. As a result, those in the tier or two right above the wage scale of starting employees would ride on the coat tails of the starting employees and their hourly wage would increase too. Others would benefit, but with the bigger $ differences as you live up the pay scale, those benefits would wane as you move up the scale. However, the efficient markets dictates that investors demand a certain return for the risk of their investment.
What would happen, would be overall salaries as a % revenues would approach efficient market demands, but with the folks at the bottom dictating the starting wages, what to do? You’d constrict the wages for those at the top. You’d have a situation where the bottom employees salary increase would increase at a much higher rate than they have recently. And salary growth of those at the top would be lower than it has been.
The system we currently have is the reverse. The boards control what happens at the top. Board members float between companies and the packages they give each other effect the packages they get voted on. When I was an auditor in a big public accounting firm, we would read board minutes all the time, but also read the profiles and qualifications of the board members. It was an eye opener to see how many of these guys were on each other’s boards and boards together of other companies. Had the “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” ring to it. Those positions closest to the CEO’s benefited and rode in the coat tails of those at the highest. But with overall market efficiency kicking in, what happens, those at the lower levels get squeezed.
The result is that in the biggest boom economy from 1978-2020, those at the highest have had gains that dwarf those in the bottom levels. Not that those at the bottom should necessarily grow at the same rates as those at the top, but it has gotten so far out of whack it’s ridiculous. Adding insult to injury, the tax code has widened the gap. (If needed review my previously sent analysis of Trump’s tax returns. it’s just not him, it’s most at the top). As much as ,your hear the fighting about tax rates and what not, the truth is, the rich would gladly give an extra 2% to keep the gravy train going. Don’t mess with the compensation. That is the bigger slice of the pie. The 2% increase in taxes? Here, keep the change. Bark and both all about it and begrudgingly give in just so they don’t focus on the real issue, compensation.
My point with point #4 that you predictably disagree with is that there isn’t efficiency among the different tiers of wages. Our version of capitalism and taxation has failed miserably in spreading the gains of labor. There may be other ways to go about it, but I think my 401k style top heav,y and participation type tests for the right to deduct salary expense would be a huge wake up call. Sure lots of issues with what it should be, but 1,200% to 18% is criminal and we need to do something to correct that. You need to see that while the overall market may be efficient, that efficiency breaks down among the levels of compensation. Again, you don’t have to insist on huge gains for the average, but we need to make a step in the right direction. A 2% change in taxes isn’t it. The status quo isn’t it.
|
|
md717
Pro Bowler
Posts: 276
|
Post by md717 on Jul 20, 2023 22:46:23 GMT -5
I think we’re on the same page. A contact that is bid with a requirement of union labor disrupts the efficient markets theory because it removes most of the workers and companies that employ those workers from the bid and the participation in efficient markets at its finest. Imagine what would happen if each company had a wage setting board governed by a few lower paid workers and the could decide what the starting wages would be for that company. Besides the employees for that company, there would be other board members of lower paid workers of other companies that would sit on that board to decide the starting wages. In a reciprocal arrangement, some lower paid workers of company A would also sit on the wage setting boards of other companies. What would be the result? The result would be the the starting wages of companies all around would increase significantly. As a result, those in the tier or two right above the wage scale of starting employees would ride on the coat tails of the starting employees and their hourly wage would increase too. Others would benefit, but with the bigger $ differences as you live up the pay scale, those benefits would wane as you move up the scale. However, the efficient markets dictates that investors demand a certain return for the risk of their investment. What would happen, would be overall salaries as a % revenues would approach efficient market demands, but with the folks at the bottom dictating the starting wages, what to do? You’d constrict the wages for those at the top. You’d have a situation where the bottom employees salary increase would increase at a much higher rate than they have recently. And salary growth of those at the top would be lower than it has been. The system we currently have is the reverse. The boards control what happens at the top. Board members float between companies and the packages they give each other effect the packages they get voted on. When I was an auditor in a big public accounting firm, we would read board minutes all the time, but also read the profiles and qualifications of the board members. It was an eye opener to see how many of these guys were on each other’s boards and boards together of other companies. Had the “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” ring to it. Those positions closest to the CEO’s benefited and rode in the coat tails of those at the highest. But with overall market efficiency kicking in, what happens, those at the lower levels get squeezed. The result is that in the biggest boom economy from 1978-2020, those at the highest have had gains that dwarf those in the bottom levels. Not that those at the bottom should necessarily grow at the same rates as those at the top, but it has gotten so far out of whack it’s ridiculous. Adding insult to injury, the tax code has widened the gap. (If needed review my previously sent analysis of Trump’s tax returns. it’s just not him, it’s most at the top). As much as ,your hear the fighting about tax rates and what not, the truth is, the rich would gladly give an extra 2% to keep the gravy train going. Don’t mess with the compensation. That is the bigger slice of the pie. The 2% increase in taxes? Here, keep the change. Bark and both all about it and begrudgingly give in just so they don’t focus on the real issue, compensation. My point with point #4 that you predictably disagree with is that there isn’t efficiency among the different tiers of wages. Our version of capitalism and taxation has failed miserably in spreading the gains of labor. There may be other ways to go about it, but I think my 401k style top heav,y and participation type tests for the right to deduct salary expense would be a huge wake up call. Sure lots of issues with what it should be, but 1,200% to 18% is criminal and we need to do something to correct that. You need to see that while the overall market may be efficient, that efficiency breaks down among the levels of compensation. Again, you don’t have to insist on huge gains for the average, but we need to make a step in the right direction. A 2% change in taxes isn’t it. The status quo isn’t it. I don't think we're even close to being on the same page on this one - but we can have a few cold ones anyway and work it out. To whatever degree cronyism and "you scratch my back I'll scratch yours" has an impact on executive compensation . . . that's not market based and I oppose that. Can you say that executive compensation is divorced from executive performance? And that it's also divorced from competition with other large firms who are competing for the small number of people capable of truly leading and growing their organizations? But think about this: what ultimately sets prices in a free market? Scarcity, right? Isn't economics (the "dismal science") all about scarcity, allocation of resources, and supply/demand? So over the past twenty or thirty or even forty years - has the number of people capable of running United Health Group (my wife's company) or Ford, or Johnson & Johnson increased, or decreased? Has the number of people barely qualified to run a cash register at McDonalds increased, or decreased? Have your peers - those who know what you know about the tax code and are willing to work as hard as you do . . . increased? or decreased? As supply increases, price decreases. Right? The first scenario you invited me to imagine is already true. No need to imagine it. The lowest level employees set their wages. Have you seen the labor force participation numbers lately? They may not be organized on a board per se, but they decide whether the wages offered make it worth showing up or not. You're seeing this in your business, are you not? So what we're seeing now is almost like an informal strike - not organized, but . . . the lowest level workers just aren't showing up. We have communities here in Lancaster County having trouble getting their trash collected, because nobody wants to work for the trash collectors at the wages offered. So eventually the trash collectors are going to have to offer higher wages/benefits and the consumers are going to pay higher rates for having their trash hauled away. This is how a free market allocates resources. It's a constant push-and-pull amongst abundant resources and scarce resources made by hundreds of millions of economic actors on a daily basis. Let me ask you another way. When you want to know who's going to win the Super Bowl in February of 2024, do you look at the opinion writers at PFT or do you look at the odds makers in Las Vegas? You want the crowd sourcing, right? Similarly, in economics you want to democratize the process amongst as many free economic decision makers as possible, who are as unencumbered by outside influencers as possible. |
|
|
|
Post by nephillymike on Jul 21, 2023 19:52:55 GMT -5
Two things.
First the supply and demand. Has the increase in the demand for CEO increased 77 times the demand for the average worker? (1,400/18. = 77)
Of course not! Has it increased over 5-1 for top 0.1% executives over the average worker? Of course not. Factor in the busy M&A activity since ‘78, and one could argue that there is less need as the business combinations has been a drag on the growth of the top executive markets that would have existed had there been not so many business combos.
Market efficiency has been adversely effected by non market driven factors, namely, the ability of top executives to vote each other’s comp packages combined with their comp packages exceeding stock market growth by almost 400%! How to accomplish this? Reward the upside significantly with a bunch of safety nets and severance packages for the downside.
Next the lack of workers post COVID. ( btw, in our business, that has changed this calendar year). The inefficient factor here was the action of government. At first the decision to pay anyone making under 62k per year more money to stay home and collect unemployment than to work was hugely adverse. Think about that. Add to that the stimulus and then not having the commuting expense to work and people had a lot of money stockpiled to sit at home. Afterwards, certain states refused to kick people off unemployment. Rather than have to go out and visit a place of employment to try to find work, they only had to answer a few openings on the portal as if they were trying to find work. Then when perspective employers like our company replied to their “ inquiry”, simply don’t answer the reply. Last year, I personally emailed and called 15 applicants to follow up on their response to our help wanted. Only 1 of 15 replied. He was a 68 year old bus driver from Delco who was told to apply for UC for the summer. He called as a courtesy to say he was going back to bus driving the next week and anyway didn’t think that we’d want a 68 year old humping furniture up stairs! 1 of 15. Meanwhile for all of the others, they looked like they were looking for work! When you have those options, of course it’s going to take more money in wages to get your ass out of your government subsidized bed!
I don’t see it MD. Your efficient markets have failed to properly distribute the wages amongst the workforce. Not in the workforce in total, just in the allocation within the tiers.
|
|
|
|
Post by One on Jul 22, 2023 6:21:40 GMT -5
I'm not even remotely informed enough or knowledgeable enough to participate in this discussion, but reading both of your comments a question slithers into my brain like the snakes in Indiana Jones' pit of fear. As a devoted conspiracy theorist, I wonder how many of those CEOs nemike mentions lead the woke companies we read about so frequently these days.
|
|
|
|
Post by nephillymike on Jul 22, 2023 14:03:06 GMT -5
One, I have my doubts that the leaders of the big companies are really into the woke culture as advertised. I think is it deemed good for business and that's why they've "changed" their opinions in recent years.
|
|
md717
Pro Bowler
Posts: 276
|
Post by md717 on Jul 24, 2023 19:40:15 GMT -5
Two things. First the supply and demand. Has the increase in the demand for CEO increased 77 times the demand for the average worker? (1,400/18. = 77) Of course not! Has it increased over 5-1 for top 0.1% executives over the average worker? Of course not. Factor in the busy M&A activity since ‘78, and one could argue that there is less need as the business combinations has been a drag on the growth of the top executive markets that would have existed had there been not so many business combos. Market efficiency has been adversely effected by non market driven factors, namely, the ability of top executives to vote each other’s comp packages combined with their comp packages exceeding stock market growth by almost 400%! How to accomplish this? Reward the upside significantly with a bunch of safety nets and severance packages for the downside. Next the lack of workers post COVID. ( btw, in our business, that has changed this calendar year). The inefficient factor here was the action of government. At first the decision to pay anyone making under 62k per year more money to stay home and collect unemployment than to work was hugely adverse. Think about that. Add to that the stimulus and then not having the commuting expense to work and people had a lot of money stockpiled to sit at home. Afterwards, certain states refused to kick people off unemployment. Rather than have to go out and visit a place of employment to try to find work, they only had to answer a few openings on the portal as if they were trying to find work. Then when perspective employers like our company replied to their “ inquiry”, simply don’t answer the reply. Last year, I personally emailed and called 15 applicants to follow up on their response to our help wanted. Only 1 of 15 replied. He was a 68 year old bus driver from Delco who was told to apply for UC for the summer. He called as a courtesy to say he was going back to bus driving the next week and anyway didn’t think that we’d want a 68 year old humping furniture up stairs! 1 of 15. Meanwhile for all of the others, they looked like they were looking for work! When you have those options, of course it’s going to take more money in wages to get your ass out of your government subsidized bed! I don’t see it MD. Your efficient markets have failed to properly distribute the wages amongst the workforce. Not in the workforce in total, just in the allocation within the tiers. Ok. So I went looking, and I couldn't find a single conservative/free market economist's opinion on this issue. I did find some disparity in terms of how these numbers are calculated. Do we count stock options granted, redeemed, or neither? Do we count salary only, or bonuses earned? Are bonuses guaranteed, or incentive-based? I also learned that the disparity (in terms of the percentage of the CEO's wage that is paid to the average worker) varies significantly depending on the type of business. McDonalds, for example, with legions of front-line, minimum wage (or close) workers has a much higher CEO pay multiplier than, say, JP Morgan Chase. But back to your latest post. I think it's pretty fuzzy math to ask whether demand for CEOs has increased by 77 times compared to demand for frontline workers by dividing the compensation growth for one group by the compensation growth for the other. Even if it was 77x - then you dismiss it with "of course not!" Oh, ok - Mike says "of course not," therefore . . . can't be true. It seems to me that the number of people capable of leading GM, let's say, is pretty damned small. Maybe demand for the types of people who can run Fortune 500 or S&P 500 companies really is up by 77x. How would you go about measuring that? And why is it any of our business, anyway? Where is that money coming from? From consumers of the product, ultimately, and secondarily from the shareholders in the business. The shareholders elect the board, right? Maybe shareholders should pay more attention. Or maybe, the market is doing its job and executives at that level are really, really scarce. Maybe there's cronyism as you say, and I denounce that. But ultimately the fix is the shareholders exerting their will, not the Federal Government. So admittedly I don't know a lot about this topic. I don't know why executive pay is so high, and why it has risen so fast in comparison to entry-level workers' pay. (I imagine, as in most things, if the CEO were suddenly to volunteer his/her services and the compensation was divided amongst every front-line worker, their individual increases would be negligible.) So when in unfamiliar territory, revert to first principles: keep the government as far away from business/markets as possible. I'll keep my eyes open and maybe look a little more, but I didn't want to let this thread just hang - and more importantly, I didn't want you to gloat that I didn't have a comeback so therefore you "won." |
|
|
|
Post by nephillymike on Jul 24, 2023 20:27:20 GMT -5
Two things. First the supply and demand. Has the increase in the demand for CEO increased 77 times the demand for the average worker? (1,400/18. = 77) Of course not! Has it increased over 5-1 for top 0.1% executives over the average worker? Of course not. Factor in the busy M&A activity since ‘78, and one could argue that there is less need as the business combinations has been a drag on the growth of the top executive markets that would have existed had there been not so many business combos. Market efficiency has been adversely effected by non market driven factors, namely, the ability of top executives to vote each other’s comp packages combined with their comp packages exceeding stock market growth by almost 400%! How to accomplish this? Reward the upside significantly with a bunch of safety nets and severance packages for the downside. Next the lack of workers post COVID. ( btw, in our business, that has changed this calendar year). The inefficient factor here was the action of government. At first the decision to pay anyone making under 62k per year more money to stay home and collect unemployment than to work was hugely adverse. Think about that. Add to that the stimulus and then not having the commuting expense to work and people had a lot of money stockpiled to sit at home. Afterwards, certain states refused to kick people off unemployment. Rather than have to go out and visit a place of employment to try to find work, they only had to answer a few openings on the portal as if they were trying to find work. Then when perspective employers like our company replied to their “ inquiry”, simply don’t answer the reply. Last year, I personally emailed and called 15 applicants to follow up on their response to our help wanted. Only 1 of 15 replied. He was a 68 year old bus driver from Delco who was told to apply for UC for the summer. He called as a courtesy to say he was going back to bus driving the next week and anyway didn’t think that we’d want a 68 year old humping furniture up stairs! 1 of 15. Meanwhile for all of the others, they looked like they were looking for work! When you have those options, of course it’s going to take more money in wages to get your ass out of your government subsidized bed! I don’t see it MD. Your efficient markets have failed to properly distribute the wages amongst the workforce. Not in the workforce in total, just in the allocation within the tiers. Ok. So I went looking, and I couldn't find a single conservative/free market economist's opinion on this issue. I did find some disparity in terms of how these numbers are calculated. Do we count stock options granted, redeemed, or neither? Do we count salary only, or bonuses earned? Are bonuses guaranteed, or incentive-based? I also learned that the disparity (in terms of the percentage of the CEO's wage that is paid to the average worker) varies significantly depending on the type of business. McDonalds, for example, with legions of front-line, minimum wage (or close) workers has a much higher CEO pay multiplier than, say, JP Morgan Chase. But back to your latest post. I think it's pretty fuzzy math to ask whether demand for CEOs has increased by 77 times compared to demand for frontline workers by dividing the compensation growth for one group by the compensation growth for the other. Even if it was 77x - then you dismiss it with "of course not!" Oh, ok - Mike says "of course not," therefore . . . can't be true. It seems to me that the number of people capable of leading GM, let's say, is pretty damned small. Maybe demand for the types of people who can run Fortune 500 or S&P 500 companies really is up by 77x. How would you go about measuring that? And why is it any of our business, anyway? Where is that money coming from? From consumers of the product, ultimately, and secondarily from the shareholders in the business. The shareholders elect the board, right? Maybe shareholders should pay more attention. Or maybe, the market is doing its job and executives at that level are really, really scarce. Maybe there's cronyism as you say, and I denounce that. But ultimately the fix is the shareholders exerting their will, not the Federal Government. So admittedly I don't know a lot about this topic. I don't know why executive pay is so high, and why it has risen so fast in comparison to entry-level workers' pay. (I imagine, as in most things, if the CEO were suddenly to volunteer his/her services and the compensation was divided amongst every front-line worker, their individual increases would be negligible.) So when in unfamiliar territory, revert to first principles: keep the government as far away from business/markets as possible. I'll keep my eyes open and maybe look a little more, but I didn't want to let this thread just hang - and more importantly, I didn't want you to gloat that I didn't have a comeback so therefore you "won." 😄 If this isn’t a win, then at least I have my closer on the mound with a two run lead in the 9th! I too will look for more information. As a reference, government is involved with 401ks, but really in law only. If you get a chance look up the two tests 401k plans have to pass for the allowance of the tax deduction. Those plans have been very effective at growing wealth. I think there is the potential for that to help with more equitable distribution of wages. |
|
