Maybe Unions do wreck companies?

Wow, what a misinformed opinion of the millennial generation. Not every kid plays video games in his parents' basement and smokes weed all day. In fact most don't. Today's youth aren't much different than the children of generations before them. They probably aren't much more intelligent in terms of factual knowledge, but they are more tech-savvy and much less accepting of "facts" than prior generations. I think you might need to go back to your porch and yell at the youngsters to "get off your lawn". :rofl:

The millennial generation's work ethic is nonexistent compared to the prior generation. That knowledge comes from hiring and mentoring employees for 33 years in my profession. There are exceptions to the rule, as always, but in general, asking a staff person to work 65 hours during busy season is like asking them for their left kidney.
 
Why should they work? Boomers sucked the value out of money, jacked taxes, and won't get out of the way. Those millenials probably work really hard at their hobbies. Working hard for the man is way dumber now then when the boomers used to complain about it.
 
For a long time, CEO to worker pay hovered around 20x, but now is 10x that and more:



ceopay2graf.jpg

And what happened in 1993 that seemed to trigger the rise in executive compensation? Internal Revenue Code Sec. 162(m) was passed by Congess and signed by Bill Clinton to rein in perceived unreasonable compensation.

Once again, government intervention into the market place yields severe unintended consequences - the rise of stock-based incentive compensation plans that are out of the control of Sec. 162(m).

Will government ever learn? Doubtful.

Here's the pertinent part of that code section:

(m) Certain excessive employee remuneration
(1) In general
In the case of any publicly held corporation, no deduction shall be allowed under this chapter for applicable employee remuneration with respect to any covered employee to the extent that the amount of such remuneration for the taxable year with respect to such employee exceeds $1,000,000.
(2) Publicly held corporation
For purposes of this subsection, the term “publicly held corporation” means any corporation issuing any class of common equity securities required to be registered under section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
(3) Covered employee
For purposes of this subsection, the term “covered employee” means any employee of the taxpayer if—
(A)as of the close of the taxable year, such employee is the chief executive officer of the taxpayer or is an individual acting in such a capacity, or
(B)the total compensation of such employee for the taxable year is required to be reported to shareholders under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by reason of such employee being among the 4 highest compensated officers for the taxable year (other than the chief executive officer).
(4) Applicable employee remuneration
For purposes of this subsection—
(A) In general
Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the term “applicable employee remuneration” means, with respect to any covered employee for any taxable year, the aggregate amount allowable as a deduction under this chapter for such taxable year (determined without regard to this subsection) for remuneration for services performed by such employee (whether or not during the taxable year).
(B) Exception for remuneration payable on commission basis
The term “applicable employee remuneration” shall not include any remuneration payable on a commission basis solely on account of income generated directly by the individual performance of the individual to whom such remuneration is payable.
(C) Other performance-based compensation
The term “applicable employee remuneration” shall not include any remuneration payable solely on account of the attainment of one or more performance goals, but only if—
(i)the performance goals are determined by a compensation committee of the board of directors of the taxpayer which is comprised solely of 2 or more outside directors,
(ii)the material terms under which the remuneration is to be paid, including the performance goals, are disclosed to shareholders and approved by a majority of the vote in a separate shareholder vote before the payment of such remuneration, and
(iii)before any payment of such remuneration, the compensation committee referred to in clause (i) certifies that the performance goals and any other material terms were in fact satisfied.
(D) Exception for existing binding contracts
The term “applicable employee remuneration” shall not include any remuneration payable under a written binding contract which was in effect on February 17, 1993, and which was not modified thereafter in any material respect before such remuneration is paid.
(E) Remuneration
For purposes of this paragraph, the term “remuneration” includes any remuneration (including benefits) in any medium other than cash, but shall not include—
(i)any payment referred to in so much of section 3121(a)(5) as precedes subparagraph (E) thereof, and
(ii)any benefit provided to or on behalf of an employee if at the time such benefit is provided it is reasonable to believe that the employee will be able to exclude such benefit from gross income under this chapter.
For purposes of clause (i), section 3121(a)(5) shall be applied without regard to section 3121(v)(1).
(F) Coordination with disallowed golden parachute payments
The dollar limitation contained in paragraph (1) shall be reduced (but not below zero) by the amount (if any) which would have been included in the applicable employee remuneration of the covered employee for the taxable year but for being disallowed under section 280G.
(G) Coordination with excise tax on specified stock compensation
The dollar limitation contained in paragraph (1) with respect to any covered employee shall be reduced (but not below zero) by the amount of any payment (with respect to such employee) of the tax imposed by section 4985 directly or indirectly by the expatriated corporation (as defined in such section) or by any member of the expanded affiliated group (as defined in such section) which includes such corporation.
 
The millennial generation's work ethic is nonexistent compared to the prior generation. That knowledge comes from hiring and mentoring employees for 33 years in my profession. There are exceptions to the rule, as always, but in general, asking a staff person to work 65 hours during busy season is like asking them for their left kidney.

You got that right, they are nothing alike. These kids that graduated in the last 10 years have had a terrible job market to contend with. When we get them started on a project they are motivated go-getters. One of them will outwork 2 boomers who've been retired on-the-job for the last decade, but never bothered to save a dime so now they won't leave. If i want to hear whining about how we never used to be tied to a cell phone or be expected to check emails on the weekend, i dont need to look any further than the nearest desk with grey hair. I'm getting plenty of grey hair of my own but i hope one of these kids is kind enough to shoot me if i someday turn into this sort of dead weight.
 
You got that right, they are nothing alike. These kids that graduated in the last 10 years have had a terrible job market to contend with. When we get them started on a project they are motivated go-getters. One of them will outwork 2 boomers who've been retired on-the-job for the last decade, but never bothered to save a dime so now they won't leave. If i want to hear whining about how we never used to be tied to a cell phone or be expected to check emails on the weekend, i dont need to look any further than the nearest desk with grey hair. I'm getting plenty of grey hair of my own but i hope one of these kids is kind enough to shoot me if i someday turn into this sort of dead weight.

You got that right.
 
What worked was that after WW2 , manufactured goods , for the most part made in the U.S. Were purchased by American workers, their biggest customer. Once greed took over and it was a race to find lowest wages, the American manufacturing companys no longer had to placate their workers plus it became a global market instead of a contained market. Not only is the american worker no longer able to join the middle class, he now enjoys a truly miserable retirement program even though, in many instances he or she gave 30 or more years to one company. Check what the average worker at exxon gets compared to management or what Jack welsh at GE got compared to average GE worker. Trickle down as dreamt up by reagans dreamers never has worked, never will. Art laffer is and always was a nut case similar to Allan Greenspan who proved to be totally wrong and finally admitted it.

I won't deny there was greed, but the CEO's of these companies were a minority in the population. The masses (stockholders, consumers, etc.) were and are just as complicit, if not more. The strive for the ‘regular joe’ to own a house, a car, a tv, etc. drove the consumer market away from what was built in-house to what was cheapest and still shiny. It was the beginning of the entitlement culture, fiscal responsibility exists at all levels of the economy. Then as the consumer market began to dry up companies are forced to begin bean counting (partially due to execs wanting big pay but that’s just a piece). On the retirement front the introduction of tax deferred retirement options in the late 70’s (401(k)’s, etc) at the push of the large institutions with pensions allowed the burden to be shifted, nominally with the tax savings, from the company to the employee. Instead, employees focused on spending rather than saving then blamed the company for their lack of retirements. That’s absurd. The dichotomy still exists today. Consumers living outside of their means, spending more than saving, etc. And you see people constantly complaining about corporate greed, but those are the same shareholders that want maximum return on their investments and want massive retirement accounts when they are of age.
 
Blaming consumers? Companies invented consumers. Along with planned obsolescence.
 
Blaming consumers? Companies invented consumers. Along with planned obsolescence.
Companies invented consumers.????:rofl::rofl::rofl:
All humans have always been consumers. Companies merely saw a demand and provided a supply. Now, it seems like I may have heard of some economic theory about that!
 
No. People bought just what they needed until excess manufacturing capacity and insights into human nature allowed Madison ave machine to launch. Consumer culture is 60 years old. Humans are wired to be fallible to such machinations, but the stuff and the creation of want of stuff is new.
 
No. People bought just what they needed until excess manufacturing capacity and insights into human nature allowed Madison ave machine to launch. Consumer culture is 60 years old. Humans are wired to be fallible to such machinations, but the stuff and the creation of want of stuff is new.

You're right. When Solomon wrote, "the desires of the eyes are without end" in the first millennium BC, everyone's eyes were desiring just "necessities." All that has happened since the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century is that over time, many luxuries have become commonplace, and new luxuries have been created, which then become commonplace, and this is happening at a faster pace.

Then there's the whole entitlement thing. The U.S. Constitution guarantees us freedom to pursue happiness, not to have a house, a car, a big screen Tv, etc.

Humans have been keeping up with the Joneses for millennia, back before family names were used.

And labor unions have outlived their usefulness in our society, and are now just a sea anchor attached to various companies, who are prevented from sharing true numbers with their employees by the federal Labor Relations Board. Union reps can say anything, the companies cannot say much.
 
No. People bought just what they needed until excess manufacturing capacity and insights into human nature allowed Madison ave machine to launch. Consumer culture is 60 years old. Humans are wired to be fallible to such machinations, but the stuff and the creation of want of stuff is new.

Excess has existed since the beginning of time, but it was limited to few. Madison avenue took the consumer machine and created the mindset of 'excess for everyone' and 'keeping up with the Jones's'. Coupled with non-secured credit, the scale began to shift and it's been tipping ever since.

Pretty simple, live within your means or change your means. Repeat for every layer of the economy and you'd have an endlessly sound system. I don't know that you'd see huge year over year growth or pseudo wealth (nuevo-riche), but it would be as stable as it gets.
 
And what happened in 1993 that seemed to trigger the rise in executive compensation? Internal Revenue Code Sec. 162(m) was passed by Congess and signed by Bill Clinton to rein in perceived unreasonable compensation.

Once again, government intervention into the market place yields severe unintended consequences - the rise of stock-based incentive compensation plans that are out of the control of Sec. 162(m).

Will government ever learn? Doubtful.

Here's the pertinent part of that code section:

(m) Certain excessive employee remuneration
(1) In general
In the case of any publicly held corporation, no deduction shall be allowed under this chapter for applicable employee remuneration with respect to any covered employee to the extent that the amount of such remuneration for the taxable year with respect to such employee exceeds $1,000,000.
(2) Publicly held corporation
For purposes of this subsection, the term “publicly held corporation” means any corporation issuing any class of common equity securities required to be registered under section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
(3) Covered employee
For purposes of this subsection, the term “covered employee” means any employee of the taxpayer if—
(A)as of the close of the taxable year, such employee is the chief executive officer of the taxpayer or is an individual acting in such a capacity, or
(B)the total compensation of such employee for the taxable year is required to be reported to shareholders under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by reason of such employee being among the 4 highest compensated officers for the taxable year (other than the chief executive officer).
(4) Applicable employee remuneration
For purposes of this subsection—
(A) In general
Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the term “applicable employee remuneration” means, with respect to any covered employee for any taxable year, the aggregate amount allowable as a deduction under this chapter for such taxable year (determined without regard to this subsection) for remuneration for services performed by such employee (whether or not during the taxable year).
(B) Exception for remuneration payable on commission basis
The term “applicable employee remuneration” shall not include any remuneration payable on a commission basis solely on account of income generated directly by the individual performance of the individual to whom such remuneration is payable.
(C) Other performance-based compensation
The term “applicable employee remuneration” shall not include any remuneration payable solely on account of the attainment of one or more performance goals, but only if—
(i)the performance goals are determined by a compensation committee of the board of directors of the taxpayer which is comprised solely of 2 or more outside directors,
(ii)the material terms under which the remuneration is to be paid, including the performance goals, are disclosed to shareholders and approved by a majority of the vote in a separate shareholder vote before the payment of such remuneration, and
(iii)before any payment of such remuneration, the compensation committee referred to in clause (i) certifies that the performance goals and any other material terms were in fact satisfied.
(D) Exception for existing binding contracts
The term “applicable employee remuneration” shall not include any remuneration payable under a written binding contract which was in effect on February 17, 1993, and which was not modified thereafter in any material respect before such remuneration is paid.
(E) Remuneration
For purposes of this paragraph, the term “remuneration” includes any remuneration (including benefits) in any medium other than cash, but shall not include—
(i)any payment referred to in so much of section 3121(a)(5) as precedes subparagraph (E) thereof, and
(ii)any benefit provided to or on behalf of an employee if at the time such benefit is provided it is reasonable to believe that the employee will be able to exclude such benefit from gross income under this chapter.
For purposes of clause (i), section 3121(a)(5) shall be applied without regard to section 3121(v)(1).
(F) Coordination with disallowed golden parachute payments
The dollar limitation contained in paragraph (1) shall be reduced (but not below zero) by the amount (if any) which would have been included in the applicable employee remuneration of the covered employee for the taxable year but for being disallowed under section 280G.
(G) Coordination with excise tax on specified stock compensation
The dollar limitation contained in paragraph (1) with respect to any covered employee shall be reduced (but not below zero) by the amount of any payment (with respect to such employee) of the tax imposed by section 4985 directly or indirectly by the expatriated corporation (as defined in such section) or by any member of the expanded affiliated group (as defined in such section) which includes such corporation.

I can't read whatever you posted, the blooming graph is so huge that your text is shrunk
to be about two inches wide, with a proportional reduction in font size.

PLEASE DONT INCLUDE ATTACHMENTS THAT ARE FIVE TIMES AS WIDE AS YOUR SCREEN!! :no:
LEARN TO REDUCE THEIR SIZE SO THAT YOUR POSTS ARE READABLE, IT KILLS THE ENTIRE PAGE!!! :yes:
 
I can't read whatever you posted, the blooming graph is so huge that your text is shrunk
to be about two inches wide, with a proportional reduction in font size.

PLEASE DONT INCLUDE ATTACHMENTS THAT ARE FIVE TIMES AS WIDE AS YOUR SCREEN!! :no:
LEARN TO REDUCE THEIR SIZE SO THAT YOUR POSTS ARE READABLE, IT KILLS THE ENTIRE PAGE!!! :yes:

Looks fine on my machine, get a bigger screen.

unix-user-dilbert.png
 
I can't read whatever you posted, the blooming graph is so huge that your text is shrunk

to be about two inches wide, with a proportional reduction in font size.



PLEASE DONT INCLUDE ATTACHMENTS THAT ARE FIVE TIMES AS WIDE AS YOUR SCREEN!! :no:

LEARN TO REDUCE THEIR SIZE SO THAT YOUR POSTS ARE READABLE, IT KILLS THE ENTIRE PAGE!!! :yes:


IT READS PERFECTLY FINE ON TAPATALK. GIVE THAT A SHOT!!!
 
yes, because the only way to stay in business is to pay **** wages. No company ever has survived paying a living wage.
All these perks we enjoy today like a 40 hour work weekends off didn't come out of the goodness of people's hearts, unions fought for those benefits.


I can't remember the last time I worked a mere 40-hour week. Damn, I need a union. :rolleyes:
 
The millennial generation's work ethic is nonexistent compared to the prior generation. That knowledge comes from hiring and mentoring employees for 33 years in my profession. There are exceptions to the rule, as always, but in general, asking a staff person to work 65 hours during busy season is like asking them for their left kidney.

I suppose it depends on your geographic location, employee pool, and industry. I don't want to work 65 hours a week, either, nor do most sane people. Perhaps a shift in priorities is what you are witnessing, where they don't desire more hours. They desire to be at home or outside enjoying life instead of stuck in a machine shop trying to earn more overtime.

Don't get me wrong, sometimes it's necessary to put in overtime to get things done. However, making a 65 hour work week commonplace wouldn't be acceptable for me, either. The other item you're not recognizing is that their decreased "work ethic" may be offset by "efficiency" where they can do more in the 40-45 hours than the Boomers do in 65 hours. I can attest to that, especially in job functions that involve technology. Watch most 55+ yr olds do analysis work in Excel, then watch a 25 yr old. The 25-yr generally works circles around the Boomer because they can use advanced filtering/pivot tables/macros/etc to get the end result. Meanwhile, the Boomer is using sorting and highlighting.

Again, the industry and specific job functions can cause a lot of the perceived laziness of Millennials. Don't pigeon hole the entire generation based off of your 33-years of looking at people to do one type of job.
 
Back
Top