How Did Walmart Get Cleaner Stores and Higher Sales? It Paid Its People More

[Jason14h]

And I don't see why we should only tax those making over 10M with 99% tax brackets. By the world metrics, anyone making over $50,000 a year is already part of the global 1%. I think that's a good place to start taxing 99%, or at least 98%.

Minimum!

I actually think all government workers should get taxed 99%, then they can give each other pay raises like they already do with their own money!

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by peter12

I think that it has been demonstrated that this is all but impossible for a CEO as an individual initiative.

But if shareholders via the board are dumb enough to approve the pay raise, for something that has been proven incorrect, why is that a problem?

And BTW if you see what has been happening in London with FTSE CEO's, a LOT of their pay raises and compensation packages were voted down by the board this year, as shareholders are beginning the realize this.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

But if shareholders via the board are dumb enough to approve the pay raise, for something that has been proven incorrect, why is that a problem?

And BTW if you see what has been happening in London with FTSE CEO's, a LOT of their pay raises and compensation packages were voted down by the board this year, as shareholders are beginning the realize this.

Because in terms of hours of effort required to affect change vs the effect of said change it doesn't make sense for an investor to fight it.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by GGG

Because in terms of hours of effort required to affect change vs the effect of said change it doesn't make sense for an investor to fight it.

Sure, but if it's such a minuscule problem that not even people willingly putting in their own money think it's worth the effort, why should the government expend any time on trying to change it?

Outside of the public sector and charitable organizations, the government should not waste any time or money on trying to regulate too high of salaries. Free market, the government shouldn't need to hold a corporations hand.

[Azure]

Sorry Gozer, but you are completely wrong here.

Most of the people making millions have worked their ass off to get where they are. Just because there are 10 companies who pay their employees like garbage while paying the CEO more than he should get(in your view at least), doesn't mean there aren't thousands more who pay their employees very well.

At the end of the day, you still want people to actually be motivated by something. Financial security is something worth working for, and probably something a lot of people dream about having. Taxing them at 99% of their income when they get there because you have some kind of wrecked notion of how the world works is a pretty stupid idea.

Bill Gates is worth billions. And he has spent billions on helping the poor, sick and those that need it. He has helped more than any government ever could. And he isn't the only one.

What we need is fair wages and opportunity. Something akin to what Walmart is doing here. Seems like most people posting in this thread appreciate it. Now we need to as a 1st world nation, keep pushing for more of that.

[Azure]

Also, instead of enacting legislation to cap CEO pay, we should enact legislation to prevent corporations from donating to political campaigns and instead move towards publicly funded elections.

Seems to me the reason some of these big corporations have been getting away with paying crappy wages, not providing health care, crappy work hours, etc, etc is because they have the politicians bought and paid for. Workers rights have all but been erased in some instances.

But no, tax them CEOs! That will fix the problem!

[flamesfever]

Because of the faltering world economy, low interest rates, deflation, etc. the the main thing supporting economies is consumer spending. In order to avoid an economic collapse, it is critical that we keep printing money and putting it into the hands of those who spend it. Raising wages is one way to accomplish this.

However, where it all ends, is anyone's guess.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Azure

Bill Gates is worth billions. And he has spent billions on helping the poor, sick and those that need it. He has helped more than any government ever could. And he isn't the only one.

Originally Posted by jammies

There is a common misconception that these executives are wealth creators, and thus deserve as much money as they can be given. This is false. Investors and entrepeneurs create wealth, while executives are employees. In a private company, someone might be all three, but in a public company, the vast majority of CEOs are hirelings, not capitalists.

Bill Gates was an entrepreneur and investor, and he made the vast bulk of his money by owning stock in his company that appreciated in value, not from his weekly wages as CEO. Thanks for confirming my argument that the common misconception is, indeed, common.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Because of the faltering world economy, low interest rates, deflation, etc. the the main thing supporting economies is consumer spending. In order to avoid an economic collapse, it is critical that we keep printing money and putting it into the hands of those who spend it. Raising wages is one way to accomplish this.

However, where it all ends, is anyone's guess.

Just printing money to print money never works as an economic strategy, it leads to a massive deflation of the value of the currency not only abroad but locally.

then you end up with a $50.00 loaf of bread and a $100.00 bottle of milk.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Slava

Have you ever voted in a say on pay resolution?

I own mutual funds, not stocks, that I buy through a guy at a bank that occasional emails me, usually when he's about to move on and some other random schlub is taking over my account. Other than marking off the "ethical funds" box whenever an old collection of stocks is replaced by a new collection of stocks (usually because the yearly performance bar charts are poor, and we can't have that!) for my investments to go into, I do nothing, including not voting on any resolutions.

I do, however, vote in elections, and thus am fully engaged in the concept that democratic government presiding over the evolution of law is a valid way to, as they say, "incentivize" socially beneficial behaviour.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by jammies

I own mutual funds, not stocks, that I buy through a guy at a bank that occasional emails me, usually when he's about to move on and some other random schlub is taking over my account. Other than marking off the "ethical funds" box whenever an old collection of stocks is replaced by a new collection of stocks (usually because the yearly performance bar charts are poor, and we can't have that!) for my investments to go into, I do nothing, including not voting on any resolutions.

I do, however, vote in elections, and thus am fully engaged in the concept that democratic government presiding over the evolution of law is a valid way to, as they say, "incentivize" socially beneficial behaviour.

You pay someone ~3.5& to manage your money? Good lord, sir. Good lord.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

As someone who works in this space, I think both Slava and Jammies are correct in many respects. Executive pay is already highly regulated, in the sense that public companies must provide shareholders a comprehensive breakdown of executive compensation. Read National Instrument 51-102F6 if you are interested, or are having trouble sleeping at night. In addition, shareholder advocacy groups such as ISS or Glass/Lewis provide recommendations to shareholders based on many disclosure factors. Companies do feel the pressure to heed these recommendations. The result of which is that companies tend to emphasis variable or "at risk" pay for the top executives. Their base salaries are often quite reasonable and the real dollars come from the uptick on options and share based compensation.

The problem that I have with the current system, is that the "at risk" pay is still woefully out of touch. If a company does very well, fine, the millions in variable/share based pay may be defensible. However, in recent years, company performance has been on the whole poor, yet executives may still walk away with millions, with it justified by blaming the economy/factors beyond the executive's control/grading on the curve. That reasoning doesn't seem to permeate when times are good, and the CEO's might be simply riding the wave of good times (high oil prices in this town) to justify monstrous compensation. The system would work much better if the "at risk" pay was actually, you know, at risk.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Sure, but if it's such a minuscule problem that not even people willingly putting in their own money think it's worth the effort, why should the government expend any time on trying to change it?

Outside of the public sector and charitable organizations, the government should not waste any time or money on trying to regulate too high of salaries. Free market, the government shouldn't need to hold a corporations hand.

Why it matters is that our capitalist system relies on the belief that the system is not rigged against them. That an individual investor has he ability to generate wealth through the market. So of public confidence in the system is undermined by executives pocketing large sums of money while people watch their investments burn you have a problem. If CEOs pay doesn't generate value it creates a negative perception of the market system.

When people lose confidence in the system they do stupid things like elect NDP governments or vote for Donald Trump. (Obviously this is an exagerration)

So in general if the market is not capable of correcting an inefficiency then regulation is required.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

As someone who works in this space, I think both Slava and Jammies are correct in many respects. Executive pay is already highly regulated, in the sense that public companies must provide shareholders a comprehensive breakdown of executive compensation. Read National Instrument 51-102F6 if you are interested, or are having trouble sleeping at night. In addition, shareholder advocacy groups such as ISS or Glass/Lewis provide recommendations to shareholders based on many disclosure factors. Companies do feel the pressure to heed these recommendations. The result of which is that companies tend to emphasis variable or "at risk" pay for the top executives. Their base salaries are often quite reasonable and the real dollars come from the uptick on options and share based compensation.

The problem that I have with the current system, is that the "at risk" pay is still woefully out of touch. If a company does very well, fine, the millions in variable/share based pay may be defensible. However, in recent years, company performance has been on the whole poor, yet executives may still walk away with millions, with it justified by blaming the economy/factors beyond the executive's control/grading on the curve. That reasoning doesn't seem to permeate when times are good, and the CEO's might be simply riding the wave of good times (high oil prices in this town) to justify monstrous compensation. The system would work much better if the "at risk" pay was actually, you know, at risk.

Not only that, but often times even when the CEO is 'fired' the severance package is completely out to lunch.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Because of the faltering world economy, low interest rates, deflation, etc. the the main thing supporting economies is consumer spending. In order to avoid an economic collapse, it is critical that we keep printing money and putting it into the hands of those who spend it. Raising wages is one way to accomplish this.

However, where it all ends, is anyone's guess.

I disagree with it being considered "printing money". I think redistribution of wealth is more accurate, the main goal is to keep the economy going by putting existing wealth into the hands of people who will spend it rather than into the hands of those who will not recirculate it because they already have more money than they can spend.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by GGG

Why it matters is that our capitalist system relies on the belief that the system is not rigged against them. That an individual investor has he ability to generate wealth through the market. So of public confidence in the system is undermined by executives pocketing large sums of money while people watch their investments burn you have a problem.
...
So in general if the market is not capable of correcting an inefficiency then regulation is required.

Just going to have to strongly disagree with you here. Should the government also send in spies to see if corporate is using extra comfortable two-ply toilet paper instead of the cheap single-ply? Where do you want to draw the line on perceived or real inefficiencies for a company?

It's not the government's job to hold the hands of corporations and decide how they should run their company. Let them make their own bed. And if people aren't confident in a company paying outrageous CEO salaries let them invest in ones where that's not the case. I know it's only Canada, but of the top 100 highest paid CEO's for Canada, there's tons making a base salary in the six digits, barely higher than the average CP salary . http://www.canadianbusiness.com/list...aid-ceos-2016/. Again, like companies, I don't see why the government needs to hold the hands for individuals. If they want to invest in a company where a CEO is making a lot, let them.

I just don't think the benefit to society, if there is one at all, outweighs the cost for having to have even more government regulation on something, I believe is, so trivial. Not when there's actual issues the government can solve, like looking at minimum wage and living expenses.

[CaptainCrunch]

I'd rather not have the government involved in the way that some people are talking about. The government bungles and overspends and are completely incompetent when it comes to actual free enterprise, the last thing that we want are them over seeing business.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I disagree with it being considered "printing money". I think redistribution of wealth is more accurate, the main goal is to keep the economy going by putting existing wealth into the hands of people who will spend it rather than into the hands of those who will not recirculate it because they already have more money than they can spend.

Yeah and that's not kosher for a lot of people. I'm definitely not going to work any harder if the government just redistributes my extra efforts and savings to someone else.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

Yeah and that's not kosher for a lot of people. I'm definitely not going to work any harder if the government just redistributes my extra efforts and savings to someone else.

I agree, I make money for me and my family, wealth re-distribution to me is disturbing.

I think that taxing people nearly half of their wages is brutally wrong.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Just printing money to print money never works as an economic strategy, it leads to a massive deflation of the value of the currency not only abroad but locally.

then you end up with a $50.00 loaf of bread and a $100.00 bottle of milk.

The situation you are painting above, e.g. Germany after WWI, was due to a very unique set of circumstances which is well documented.

In my understanding, we are living in very unique economic times, when there is weak demand for goods and services globally. Expanding the money supply (or printing money) is one way to stimulate that demand, by boosting consumer spending, thereby kick starting the global economy. Naturally it must be done very carefully and methodically in a way that does not lead to hyperinflation.

I do agree that part of the plan is to tax the super rich and upper middle class, and transfer the money to the lower class to spend. I think this sounds good in theory, but practically may have serious consequenses.

Also, over the next while, a lot of money will go into circulation through inheritance, by a generation with a much higher tendency to spend money. This should help the economy to come degree.