"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.