Mgt .vs. Labor
Let me stir the pot here - Long post!
Mgt. .vs. Labor
These two are always diametrically opposed, as they should be in a free enterprise system. Labor always wants to be paid as much as they can get. On the other hand, Mgt wants to pay as little as possible.
But it's deeper than that. Let me lump "Owners" and "Business Starters" in with Mgt. Sure there are shareholders in Labor but you rarely see the real risk takers working as labor. An employee doesn't put up anything unusual at risk (in terms of measurable assets - lets not get in to safety just yet!)
Mgt takes risks. In the beginning, those are personal risks. On order to become a business owner, CEO etc there will have to be some point in the fiscal career where personal assets will be put on the line and a huge risk taken. Thus they should be rewarded for the risk.
I really doubt that Mgt pats each other on the back when giving each other bonuses because of a successful pay cut, except of course in union situations, due to the hostile tendencies of those negotations.
If you look at a successful, growing company you will usually see happy employees that are steadily increasing their pay rates as the company increases profit margins. I've said it before: no company wants to show a cash profit at the end of the year and cause a tax event! It results in double taxation. It is much easier (and cheaper) to pay payroll taxes by giving out bonuses. Fortunately, our democrat friends have failed so far in their attempts to tax those bonuses at a higher rate. They mistakenly argue that it will generate more income when in fact it will just reduce the number of year end bonuses. The corporations will find another way to spend money to avoid corporate income tax. Remember, this would apply to YOUR bonus as well.
An employee can never be "paid what he/she is worth" - that is bad fiscal policy. Due to overhead that means that the employee would actually be costing the company money.
I learned this lesson after having it beat in to my head too many times. No employer will ever pay you any more than they absolutely have to, to keep you coming to work every day. My dad put it this way, "You don't get wealthy working for someone else. As long as someone else controls what you make then you are not free."
This is ok though, it's what makes America great. In this country someone can take risks by putting personal assets on the line and (hopefully) generate business, and therefore commerce. The IRS will get their cut of the payroll taxes as it should and the gov't is funded.
Myth #1: "It takes money to make money"
I know a lot of people who started with money and are now broke. The second generation of wealth has a very poor statistical history in the US. In fact, if I walk around Florida here and see who the wealthy business owners are, most are not even from here! They arrived with nothing but a dream and a good attitude.
I'd say it takes an idea and a mindset, more than money.
Myth #2: "The rich are keeping the money from the poor"
I'd say it's more the other way around. The rich come up with something the poor want and they hock their lives to buy it! Why would anyone spend $35k on a new car for example? What a horrible investment! A car loses half it's value as soon as you sign the bill of sale.
Myth #3: "Airline Pilots are rich" or "Airline Pilot is a Good Job"
First of all, the percentage of pilots that actually make a decent wage is regrettably low as we all have discussed to death. But even those that do are still not what the American public would call "rich" as most still make payments on cars, Visas, etc. (I am excluding those forward thinking pilots who have invested their money wisely, particularly in a second business. I am referring to those who rely entirely on their pilot pay for income.)
Second, "Good Job" may be an oxymoron. I think we can say that the old American Dream of working 9-5 for forty years and retiring on our pension and social security is no longer a given. Last I heard my social security was already spent.
This is getting long so I'll stop. Maybe this belongs in the squawk box but we were already talking "in the neighborhood."
[/soapbox]
