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.

--
__________________________________________________ __________
Email sent to will never reach me.

"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.

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.



--
__________________________________________________ __________
Email sent to will never reach me.

"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.


Care to provide some proof to that claim?

You are nothing but a left wing socialist Harry. In your world everyone should make
the same and share equally in the wealth, regardless of whose money was originally at
or remains at stake to create the wealth.

I am glad I don't live in your world.

"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.

CEO's have a very high level of responsibility, and their decisions affect
tens of thousands of employees, hundreds of thousands of shareholders, and
millions of consumers. It takes a special blend of smarts, experience, and
charisma to successfully run a company, so it's usually very hard to replace
a good CEO.

Compare his/her salary to a line worker on an assembly line. They're
usually responsible for just a few different tasks. Sure, other employees,
shareholders and consumers may be affected by his/her actions. But, other
people have designed and built the part he/she is assembling, and he/she is
just reading instructions and following through on them. Most of the time
he/she could be replaced in a matter of minutes...if it weren't for those
pesky unions. ;-)

Nevertheless, CEO's are grossly overpaid...but so are *some* union laborers.

Jim - wrote:

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


Care to provide some proof to that claim?

Don't be so damned lazy, Dennis. It's out there. It's even been reported
in the WSJ any number of times.



You are nothing but a left wing socialist Harry.

And you are what, Dennis? A right-wing national socialist?

Actually, I am not a socialist, but I do believe some aspects of modern
European socialism make their societies more advanced than ours.
Norwegians, for example, made good livings, have good housing, have
unlimited educational opportunities, have first-rate health care, better
vacation benefits than we have and retirement income. In this country,
we can't even assure our seniors health care and enough food.





In your world everyone should make
the same and share equally in the wealth, regardless of whose money was originally at
or remains at stake to create the wealth.

If you think that, you are a real pea brain. Nonetheless, I don't view
money as any more valuable or "at stake" than labor.


I am glad I don't live in your world.

Oh you do, you just haven't figured it out. You are losing.



__________________________________________________ __________
Email sent to will never reach me.

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.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jim - wrote:

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


Care to provide some proof to that claim?

Don't be so damned lazy, Dennis. It's out there. It's even been reported
in the WSJ any number of times.


That is your typical response when asked to provide proof. But that dog don't hunt
anymore Harry. If you cannot provide the proof I guess I will once again assume you
spouted nothing but a lie.

Jim - wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jim - wrote:

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


Care to provide some proof to that claim?

Don't be so damned lazy, Dennis. It's out there. It's even been reported
in the WSJ any number of times.


That is your typical response when asked to provide proof. But that dog don't hunt
anymore Harry. If you cannot provide the proof I guess I will once again assume you
spouted nothing but a lie.


It's not my fault you're an intellectual washout, Dennis. It is
well-known that many American corporations grossly overpay their chief
execs, and that among many successful European corporations, the
multiple of the chief exec's income over that of the average worker
doesn't begin to approach the multiple here.

As an example, one of the highest paid European execs is Jorma Ollila,
the chairman and CEO of Nokia, one of the most the most successful telco
equipment manufacturers in the world. In 2002, Ollila earned about $3
million, half from salary, half from bonus. A lot of money, and much
more than his average worker, but...the multiple isn't like it is in
this country, where the typical corporate CEO at a large company is
taking home about 600 times as much as the typical worker.

Do something other than skim NewsMax, Dennis. Your ignorance of the real
world has to embarrass your family.






--
__________________________________________________ __________
Email sent to will never reach me.

"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.

--
__________________________________________________ __________
Email sent to will never reach me.


More fluffery and jingoism from you. Lowering CEO salaries to this amount
would barely touch cost of production.