PepsiCo to cut 8,700 jobs

[PlaysLikeMyung]

So, because they're the best, they deserve the money? I'm not arguing they shouldn't get paid. But they shouldn't get paid what they do. None of them.

SD's dad, for example, may be the best at whatever he does. But is he earning 20 million a year for it? No. So why the huge dollar amounts?

What does Super Dude's dad do?  I don't want to assume anything about his replacability.

But I can pretty safely talk about economic scope.  The most valuable football team, the Cowboys, is worth 1.85 billion dollars.  Even the least valuable team, the Jaguars, is worth $725 million.  Whatever SD's dad does, I don't think that much money is at stake.

Also, why is it "wrong" for Michael Vick to make as much as he does?  I think he might have been overvalued as a football player, but your posts imply you think there's a moral issue.

I just have a problem with money of that magnitude going to persons and not being redistributed for the good of the nation.

So I'm a socialist. No individual should have that much fucking money

[King Postwhore]

The American people think it's worth that much, really, which says a lot about our priorities where we, arguably, value entertainment over, say, research or medicine.

Let's not get silly now.  Liverpool just spent a boatload of money signing a few players this year.  It's not exclusive to America.

[The King in Crimson]

The American people think it's worth that much, really, which says a lot about our priorities where we, arguably, value entertainment over, say, research or medicine.

Let's not get silly now.  Liverpool just spent a boatload of money signing a few players this year.  It's not exclusive to America.

Yeah, you're right, that was a bit of an ignorant statement, but I didn't want to generalize other countries as I know little about their sports-related proclivities.

[ReaPsTA]

But why is a football team worth so much? Why should it be?

Because professional football in this country is an event which (a) sells a lot of tickets at high prices (b) is a good medium for advertising, both at the game and on television, and (c) sells a lot of merchandise.

I'm not saying money should be the only thing that determines value, both to society and as a part of the human experience.  But monetary success in a free market is quantifiable.  It has to be earned rather than simply bestowed upon you.

It's not perfect, but it works.  To me, one of the scariest things possible is the notion of value being determined because of what people think should be valuable rather than basing it on an objective standard.

[rumborak]

I don't think it should particularly surprise that CEOs make the money they do. Because, and it's interesting nobody ever talks about that, a company is a dictatorship essentially. And dictatorships around the world have one thing in common, which is the head poncho making insane amounts of money.
It's interesting how keen the US is to spread democracy around the world, but almost considers it treason to use the same principle when it comes to companies. Strangely, when managing one group of people it's the only thing that works, and at another it is a recipe for disaster.

rumborak

[Jamesman42]

In the end, the companies decides what they want to do with their money. It does suck that there is such a stark contrast, because of how it affects so many, but what can be done about it?

[TempusVox]

It's interesting how keen the US is to spread democracy around the world, but almost considers it treason to use the same principle when it comes to companies.

Your confusing democracy with capitalism. Democracy is a consensual hallucination of people concerned with how to divide opportunity fairly. "In the long run," said Thoreau, "men hit only what they aim at. Therefore, though they should fail immediately, they had better aim at something high." Our Constituion says "All men are created equal". It doesn't say "all men are equal." Big difference really. You know that whole "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" thing.

[rumborak]

I think you are rather pulling in a different aspect than the one I'm talking about. My point is that apparently asking everybody in a group how to govern the group is a desired modus operandi when it comes to things like police, defense etc. When it comes to governing a group that produces a product together however that approach is viewed as bad and deleterious.
And btw, I'm really mostly being rhetorical here. I am fully convinced that there is no rational explanation for that dichotomy, other than that it's much easier to start a new business than a new country, and so a business owner is his immediate king of the hill. And as a sidenote, workforce participation in managerial decision is practiced in a lot of countries in Europe, and quite successfully so.

EDIT: That said, I think capitalism is indeed so successful because it promises the riches of dictatorship, so to speak.

rumborak

[Scheavo]

I'm sure union leadership is a hell of a lot more caring about the people they represent than the executives and CEO's running the place. It's sorta weird to see greed be brought up as a reason to despise unions, when the people they are fighting are greedier by far.

Unions are why we have no manufacturing based economy in this country any longer. I have sat with these people and watched them do actual harm to the people they claim to represent countless times.

For the majority of the post, I never said what I said was true of all companies, or of all unions. There are quite definitely Unions, and ways of setting up workforce participation, which are corrupt and bad. There are definitely companies, as well, which are basically icons of what capitalism can do well.

As for this specific statement, it's so grievously wrong I don't know where to start. Maybe with the fact that manufacturing is actually growing in this country, two quarters in a row I believe. But really, the main problem with this is the fact that the reason we don't manufacture as much as we used to because of cheap Chinese labor and transportation. We would have to drastically lower the wages and the quality of living of millions of people in order to actually compete (and let's ignore the environmental consequences). Just so happens, though, that this difference is going away, and it's going away without us getting rid of Unions.

Oh, CEO's are also not necessarily the smartest or the best, but rather the most able to capitalize on opportunities. Sometimes regardless of the consequences. There's a reason psychopaths are more common as CEO's of big companies than in the general population. Do they deserve good compensation? Yes. but that does not mean they deserve the kind of compensation many of them are getting. American worker productivity has actually raised steadily since the 1980's, but their wages have remained stagnant, and CEO's and the rich have been getting richer and richer. In other words, the workers are getting more work done, and getting jack shit in compensation for it, while the big boys up top are taking more and more; meanwhile, they gamble away pensions, and leave the workers to pay for any of their truly bad decisions.

[Scheavo]

I'm sure union leadership is a hell of a lot more caring about the people they represent than the executives and CEO's running the place.

My dad works in a union.  He would get a good laugh out of this.  Or he'd just get angry.

You'll notice how I never said Union Leadership fully and honestly cares about the people they represent, I simply compared it to the interest CEO's have in the same workers.

But why is a football team worth so much? Why should it be?

It's not perfect, but it works.  To me, one of the scariest things possible is the notion of value being determined because of what people think should be valuable rather than basing it on an objective standard.

I think there are cases and examples where we can objectively show how some people are being compensated too much. When worker productivity goes up, and their wages remain stagnant, I'd say we can objectively look at that, and it's comparison to executive compensation, and agree that executives are compensated "too highly."

[Super Dude]

Especially in such cases as executive wages rise even as executive productivity plateaus.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

I'll say football players earn their keep when they play as many games in a week as hockey/baseball players. 16 games a year is too little for 20 million

[hefdaddy42]

I'll say football players earn their keep when they play as many games in a week as hockey/baseball players. 16 games a year is too little for 20 million

I don't follow hockey, but the average football player exerts himself physically a hell of a lot more during their 16 games than an average baseball player does in their 100,000 or however much they play.

Hockey players probably physically play just as hard if not harder, but the market just isn't there for hockey the way that it is for football, basketball, or baseball.

[ReaPsTA]

I think there are cases and examples where we can objectively show how some people are being compensated too much. When worker productivity goes up, and their wages remain stagnant, I'd say we can objectively look at that, and it's comparison to executive compensation, and agree that executives are compensated "too highly."

Of course there are overvalued executives.  And there are undervalued workers.  What's your larger point though?

I'll say football players earn their keep when they play as many games in a week as hockey/baseball players. 16 games a year is too little for 20 million

The amount of games has nothing to do with anything.  It's the revenue you generate for your team and the share you get back.

Football players and baseball players make relatively good money because they have smart unions.  Hockey players have historically been ripped off by the team owners, the 2004-2005 lockout being the most recent example.  The NBA player union just got destroyed in a lockout because their leadership was dumb.

Again, these things have nothing to do with what "should" be.  I think both the NFL and NBA lockouts are perfect examples of injustice perpetrated by big business.  But my opinion doesn't matter.  That's how the real world works.

A question - are athlete salaries intrinsically more just because they are negotiated with the help of a union?

[Super Dude]

*removed*

[Super Dude]

*removed*

[antigoon]

I agree that I'd like to see regular workers get paid more in proportion to top executives, but I honestly have no problem with how much professional athletes make.

I'm not sure why I feel that way, though.

[ReaPsTA]

[removed]

But yeah, so a football player still rakes in more in a single season than my dad does in a decade of working. And he owns his practice.

If I was one of only two people in my state that knew how to do something, I'd feel like a badass.

As for NFL salaries, I think they're pretty easy to overestimate.  The big contracts get the most publicity, but NFL teams need tons of players beyond the big stars to fill out their rosters.

https://www.steelersdepot.com/2011/07/2011-2014-nfl-minimum-base-salaries/

The base salary for rookies is only $390,000 per year for rookies next year.  Even after being in the league over ten years, it never jumps past $1,000,000.

It would seem helpful to get a better look at what being an NFL player really means in terms of salary.  Here's the Eagles roster (since it's my team):

https://www.eaglescap.com/current.html

15 of the team's 51 players have a base salary of one million dollars per year or more.  So, right away, we can see that making tons of money as an NFL player is relatively rare.  For the players not in the special group making a million or more per year, their average salary is about $565,200 dollars.  My travelings on Google indicate to me that this kind of salary is common for neurosurgeons.  Also, the Eagles are one of the more valuable teams in the NFL.  Unlike some teams, they aren't tight with their salaries.  For many teams, the average would almost certainly be lower.

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that, most likely, being an NFL player probably doesn't mean you're paid more than a neurosurgeon.  Comparable, yes.  But both NFL players and neurosurgeons represent an elite level of ability.  There are actually fewer NFL players than neurosurgeons in this country if, again, Google is to be believed.

[antigoon]

Also, the average NFL player's career isn't very long at all. They're not making that money for 20, 30 years.

[El Barto]

This is a problem we're all going to face pretty soon. 

OT, but what do you mean by this?

Sorry I didn't get to this sooner (when you were still a member in good standing and able to reply).

In much the same way that ATMs and self checkout counters are putting tellers and cashiers out of work,  the manufacturing industry will be facing the same hit.  I don't know why shoes became the common example of 3d printing, but they do work as such.  We're not too far away from the point where people will be able to print a pair themselves.  What happens to Reebok when their labor force is no longer needed?  3d printing is already seeing expanded use in industry, and I suspect we'll be seeing tremendous growth pretty soon.  And this is only one aspect of eliminating people from manufacturing.  Automation is getting much better, as well. 

Truth is,  an enormous number of American jobs are becoming superfluous.  Part of the issue we've had in the past is that refitting existing factories won't be feasible.  Now that we're seeing greater use of automation and technology,  plants will be built that require fewer and fewer employees,  and the rate of that transition will pick up speed. 

I'm not talking about next week, mind you, but consider how much technology has changed in the last 30 years,  and project forward how different things will look 30 years from now.  Combine that with significant population growth, and we're going to be needing a significantly different model for employment. 

[Scheavo]

I think there are cases and examples where we can objectively show how some people are being compensated too much. When worker productivity goes up, and their wages remain stagnant, I'd say we can objectively look at that, and it's comparison to executive compensation, and agree that executives are compensated "too highly."

Of course there are overvalued executives.  And there are undervalued workers.  What's your larger point though?

That we both agree that what the market ends up paying people isn't what we both think should be it's value. You're doing the same thing you don't think is right to do, because there is no "objective" value. Looking at what the market does, as the "most right," implies a sense of some objective value, which is known in some fashion, and which we can't doubt.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

[
15 of the team's 51 players have a base salary of one million dollars per year or more.  So, right away, we can see that making tons of money as an NFL player is relatively rare.  For the players not in the special group making a million or more per year, their average salary is about $565,200 dollars.  My travelings on Google indicate to me that this kind of salary is common for neurosurgeons.  Also, the Eagles are one of the more valuable teams in the NFL.  Unlike some teams, they aren't tight with their salaries.  For many teams, the average would almost certainly be lower.

You don't think 1M per year BASE is not tons?

[bosk1]

[
15 of the team's 51 players have a base salary of one million dollars per year or more.  So, right away, we can see that making tons of money as an NFL player is relatively rare.  For the players not in the special group making a million or more per year, their average salary is about $565,200 dollars.  My travelings on Google indicate to me that this kind of salary is common for neurosurgeons.  Also, the Eagles are one of the more valuable teams in the NFL.  Unlike some teams, they aren't tight with their salaries.  For many teams, the average would almost certainly be lower.

You don't think 1M per year BASE is not tons?

Who are you to say?

[PlaysLikeMyung]

someone who could never hope to make that kind of money a year.


but then again you're a lawyer so you're probably fairly well off anyway

[bosk1]

someone who could never hope to make that kind of money a year.

So what?  How does that give you the right to say when someone, in your opinion, makes "too much" money?

[Super Dude]

*big post*

I would like to point out that I never said my dad was a neurosurgeon; he is a neurologist. Yes, there is a difference, and my dad said that if he had chosen to go the surgery route we would've made a lot more money, but he decided against it because he didn't like the working conditions.

[King Postwhore]

My dad has MS and goes to a neurologist on a regular basis.

[Super Dude]

Oh yeah, I know we're getting off-topic here, but my dad does work with MS patients as well.

[King Postwhore]

I've been to many visits with him.

BTW I do cringe with the money Athletes and Movie Stars make but in truth, if you don't want them to make so much money, don't go to games and the movies but I'm too weak myself for that standard.

[Super Dude]

I've been to many visits with him.

BTW I do cringe with the money Athletes and Movie Stars make but in truth, if you don't want them to make so much money, don't go to games and the movies but I'm too weak myself for that standard.

I mean if you don't want them to make so much money, you abstaining is like a drop in the bucket. A noticeable impact would require hundreds, if not thousands of boycotters.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

someone who could never hope to make that kind of money a year.

So what?  How does that give you the right to say when someone, in your opinion, makes "too much" money?

what gives YOU the right to say that someone is immoral? (although not related to this topic)

don't try to pull this stuff on me bosky. You're full of the same crap

[bosk1]

Nice dodge.  I figured you wouldn't have an answer.  Truth is, nobody does.  Which is why nobody has the right to say anyone in particular makes "too much" money and to make arguments about why some of it should be taken away.

[Super Dude]

Nice dodge.  I figured you wouldn't have an answer.  Truth is, nobody does.  Which is why nobody has the right to say anyone in particular makes "too much" money and to make arguments about why some of it should be taken away.

Nobody? So to take an extreme example, there should be no one to step in when millions are starving for the benefit of fifty billionaires?

[bosk1]

What if what?  You can come up with all kinds of extreme examples, but that doesn't change the fact that what belongs to someone belongs to them and not to anyone else.

[Super Dude]

But why? Personal property isn't a natural right, it's a conclusion that's been arrived at, and it is (and ought to be) malleable.