"Many individuals who are called unfortunate are mislabeled. If someone fails to get an education or learn a skill they are not unfortunate. They are foolish. If someone doesn’t work when they have the ability to work, they are not unfortunate. They are lazy. Anyone who thinks the government owes them a living or will take care of them for an extended period of time is not unfortunate. They are clueless."...... That is part of a paragraph from a manuscript I am working on......

Every business is entitled to pay the boss(s) whatever they think is fit. No worker is entitled to feel the company owes them more just because the boss gets a large paycheck.

Jim

A whole host of the folks here, who're on H1B visas, are from the technical/engineering side of industry. There has been, and continues to be a shortage of these folks. Also, plenty of people who came here on student visas, graduated, found a job, and are looking to stay here opt for the H1B to eventual green card route. They've been educated, indoctrinated, and would like to stay here for their future.

There is always a segment that does not fit the above category, the minority or exception to the fact, but skimming top talent from other nations has significantly benefited the United States in the long run, especially in the high tech field where quality top talent was hard to come by.

If American companies want global reach and desire to stay innovative, they have to get the best people for the job, at the best price. The solution isn't to decrease H1B quotas in favor of domestic talent - it is to educate domestic talent and make them competitive.

Currently, there has been a pull back in some outsourcing on the small-medium business level. Why? The dollar is weak and productivity of outsourced employees still does not match American productivity. So, for such business, they'd rather pay a guy here 80k rather than 2 people in India for 30k because they still get better return on investment from the American employee. This is just one example.

When it comes to the national security/defense side, since the USG is the primary customer, blame on letting the production infrastructure fade away lies squarely on our government and by extension us. Between Congress and the Presidents, we've had incredibly short sighted production/sustainment goals. Then when wars roll around, the government thinks it can turn on the faucet and have everything we need, especially when that production line has been down for 20 years, people who had the skill to make it have long retired or left, and the company itself has changed hands a few times.

Our primary problems and their solutions are right here at home, it's just that us Americans have begun to think along European lines of we're 'entitled' to certain benefits, vs having to earn them through hard work, ingenuity, and innovation. To save a few years of higher unemployment rates while the market corrects itself, forces call for policies that would result in higher unemployment down the line due to socialist/closed policies.

Excellent post, but I think your closing comment went over my head. If you have time to elaborate, I would be very interested to hear.

+1

People just don't fork over 100 million or whatever compensation because they felt generous. Considering how cut throat business is, people don't want to fork over an extra penny if they don't want to. If the corporation and its share holders have approved a payout, then they're in their rights to do so.

Let me provide a scenario:

An industry is facing a correction, lets take the tech sector. In 2001 after the dot com bubble burst, plenty were calling for jobs to stay local. If the government subsidized those corporations, or by law forced them to hire locally, it would still continue to perform ineffectively without a 'shake down'. Global economics and markets are dynamic, but the people who believe they're entitled to a certain job want to keep things static and unchanging. I don't blame them for such a desire, but from a macro economic perspective it's just the way things are. Say their wish is granted and via politics the job is 'saved', not by increasing productivity or growth, and 5 years down the line the company goes under, which resulted in more people becoming unemployed, more people demanding the government take care of them...

I absolutely agree with this - Americans are forgetting what a free market is all about and want to see more regulation in order to try and get themselves a piece of the pie they see out there instead of working for it.

It's like Pete said, you can say that crazy Tom doesn't deserve his millions but regardless of what you think, he still gets them because he's found a way to make them. On the other hand, if everyone decided that he wasn't worth it - he probably wouldn't be making the millions anymore. Beauty of a free economy, we get to choose what's worth what. It isn't perfect but its certainly better than the alternative.

Along these lines, my husband is reading this book:
The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism: and Other Writings by Max Weber
He is loving it and many of the things he's been telling me about are along these lines and certainly his ideas are "new" as he wrote it in 1905. I plan on reading it when he's finished.

If it was offered probably not but I still would not be worth the amount.

The rich do get richer by doing what it takes and the poor get that way because of bad decisions. But what I am saying is the spread is getting way out of proportion.

And by what measure do you use to establish the correct proportion?

Outsourcing is, as has been mentioned, an effort by business to minimize labor costs. It is necessary for corporate survival – and global labor arbitrage means that, given present conditions, no company can ignore the issue. The problem is, U.S. workers face a higher cost structure, along with higher expectations, than exist elsewhere. In time, market forces (barring outside events) will tend to create equilibrium in labor costs – wages in India, China, and elsewhere will increase, while U.S. wages will decline. The changes are likely to be wrenching for some. There are likely to be political repercussions. If the economy continues to degrade, we’ll get a sampling from the ongoing presidential campaigns.

Where this gets interesting is when we factor in the effects of peak oil. (Yes, I know. Boring, right? But it is my favorite rant.) Energy prices will continue up, creating a downward bias in economic growth. The cost of moving materials and goods will likewise increase. It is possible that costs will mitigate – or perhaps, over the course of decades, sharply reduce global trade. Chronic recession will also have its effects, with interesting effects on the labor market. Interesting is not necessarily good or pleasant. And if we get extended economic hard times, I will be very surprised if the issue is not used by demagogues. That is unlikely to enhance social cohesion. For those not fond of socialism – and I am not – visions of FDR’s administration come to mind.

CEO salaries are a fascinating issue. Let us suppose the owner (not CEO – owner) of a business makes a quick hundred million dollars. His (or her) capital is at risk; he (or she) is generating wealth and making a real contribution to the economy. But what of the CEO of a public corporation? Such salaries are set by the executive compensation committee, which is derived from the board of directors. The shareholders elect the directors.

For those who have not taken a hard look at the process, the individual shareholder can vote for the candidates, or not vote for the candidates – but there is only one slate of candidates. So – if one had an election, and could either vote for a certain female candidate, or not vote for her – but had NO alternative – would that be good? A shareholder can offer an alternative slate of directors – at the cost of millions of dollars. In addition, those who own mutual funds, either directly or indirectly through pension funds, have no vote. I question the compensation of CEOs when the actual owners of the company (the shareholders) have little voice in the selection of the executive and less still in the compensation of same.

As for the national security issue…our economic choices make China stronger. Will China always be a true and trustworthy friend? If not, is it wise to build their industry while eviscerating our own?

The "spread" is based on market conditions. What would you prefer? Government intervention? That would be Socialism/Communism wouldn't it? And exactly how well did that work?

@#$%!!! It just occurred to me that I missed my quarterly contribution to the Franchise Tax Board...good thing we lost a little money last year, I guess...:rolleyes:

Would you mind a fer instance...? We (the company I work for) have a hard time finding licensed surveyors or civil engineers, regardless of nationality...no American engineer or surveyor capable of passing the examinations has been turned away because of nationality, I can assure you of that...:munchin

"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!" - Karl Marx, 1875

Right, comrade?

What is the basis for your "spread" calculation?

TR

There is not a good basis to make a measure of the spread. As inflation drives up prices the spread get wider, that is the market condition. Corporations pay these guys and gals to run their company based on their past performance and experience. They seem to think they are worth it.

I do not seek any government intervention far from that and that would not work not over a long period of time anyway. I enjoy freedom and liberty too much at least what we have left of it.

I am saying as time goes on the spread just keeps getting wider and wider. More or less a question is where does it end, or revert back the other direction? Is there ever going to be a limit? It is just hard for me to imagine someone being worth that much money for their services.