Agreed on all accounts.


"." .@. wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 20:27:30 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"jps" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...

When an H-1 visa engineer that is just as capable as a USA
born
engineer will work for $60k, you think we can compete in the
world market?

If we had our **** together and did a decent job of educating
our
kids,
we
could be pumping out labor ready technical folks who'd be
damned
pleased
to
make $40 to $60K a year. We haven't made the investment in
our
own
educational infrastructure, India obviously has.

It's just another example of how we've ceded our competitive
edge
to
others -- in an industry we invented.

Stupid.

You call me stupid? Read your statement and then go look in
the
mirror.
We
seem to have non labor ready carpenters that require 80k a
year,
longshoreman that require 100k+ and you think a college
educated,
labor
ready person will want to work for 40-60K?



It's your own fault you made the wrong career choices.



Your reply shows how much out of touch with reality you are.
Explain
how we
are to compete in the world market, given our labor costs.



We can start by lowering "executive" salary to no more than several
times what the average worker at a corporation makes.


I think that would be a terrific start. Would labor agree to
proportional
cuts, as well? In other words, would the following hypothetical
scenario be
agreeable?

Management's total income costs a company $500 million dollars split
among
500 of its top management. If you cut that by 60%, you've reduced
management labor expense to $200 million split among the top
management.

If labor's total income expense is also $500 million, but it's split
among
10000 employees, would they accept a 60% cut in pay? How about a 40%
cut?
Or even a 10% cut? Probably not...because labor is very
short-sighted.




Most successful companies overseas allow their chief execs to make only
several times the average pay of the people they employ.

I've always believed that pay should be commensurate not with how hard
one
works, but with the level of responsibility one has, the number of people
that are directly affected by the decisions made by that person, and how
difficult it would be to replace that person if they were lost.


Concerning the CEOs, I'd pay based on the lawful, moral, and
successful execution of one's job.

Compensation, from the CEO down, ought to have something to do with
the profitability of the company. The best CEO on the planet can't
operate a company with crappy employees and the employees can't
succeed without a successful leader.... this is a balance that
shouldn't be ignored. Once you set the stage for adversarial
relationship in this arena... you have asked for a loss of production
and profitability.

Considering some of the shenanigans of CEOs of late and coupled with
the platinum parachutes that seem to imply that the bigger mess you
leave behind, the greater rewards you are entitled to reap..... Harry
might not be all that far off.