Comments on: Article For The Month Of March, 2009… http://jordansjournal.net/2009/03/12/article-for-the-month-of-march/ Clear and concise answers all in one place Thu, 09 Sep 2010 05:59:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 By: Robert http://jordansjournal.net/2009/03/12/article-for-the-month-of-march/comment-page-1/#comment-607 Robert Wed, 07 Oct 2009 16:55:15 +0000 http://jordansjournal.net/?p=162#comment-607 Well, Sir, thanks for that reply. However, I must correct you on a few things. I did not say that I definitively work 100 hours per week. Sometimes I choose to, and I deserve to be compensated for it. As you know, I have the self-created opportunity and flexibility in my work scheduling to work as much or as little as I want, evidenced by my frequent trips to Hawaii, Europe, Mexico, etc. While "most" people, as you say, are not capable of making more than $200K/year, many can, even by billing by the hour. My point is pertaining to your "salary cap". I think you don't have a realistic knowledge of the opportunities that exist in the free market in our country for intelligent individuals such as yourself. The $200K cap you talk of can be achieved quite easily if you want to go out and get it, even working 50-60 hours per week. You say that if I worked 50-60 hours per week, I would not be making more than $200K. Quite an assumption, and incorrect. If a person stays in the same career, takes a few chances, works hard, and excels at what he/she does, the money will come. With that situation comes trust and preference from clients, who are willing to pay such a dedicated individual more per hour. That individual deserves more per hour, because he is better than others in his industry and is cost-effective to his/her clients. If someone offers services for a certain price per hour, and persons are willing to pay that price, why should there be a cap on that person's income? Well, Sir, thanks for that reply. However, I must correct you on a few things. I did not say that I definitively work 100 hours per week. Sometimes I choose to, and I deserve to be compensated for it. As you know, I have the self-created opportunity and flexibility in my work scheduling to work as much or as little as I want, evidenced by my frequent trips to Hawaii, Europe, Mexico, etc. While “most” people, as you say, are not capable of making more than $200K/year, many can, even by billing by the hour. My point is pertaining to your “salary cap”. I think you don’t have a realistic knowledge of the opportunities that exist in the free market in our country for intelligent individuals such as yourself. The $200K cap you talk of can be achieved quite easily if you want to go out and get it, even working 50-60 hours per week. You say that if I worked 50-60 hours per week, I would not be making more than $200K. Quite an assumption, and incorrect. If a person stays in the same career, takes a few chances, works hard, and excels at what he/she does, the money will come. With that situation comes trust and preference from clients, who are willing to pay such a dedicated individual more per hour. That individual deserves more per hour, because he is better than others in his industry and is cost-effective to his/her clients.

If someone offers services for a certain price per hour, and persons are willing to pay that price, why should there be a cap on that person’s income?

]]> By: alex streicek http://jordansjournal.net/2009/03/12/article-for-the-month-of-march/comment-page-1/#comment-606 alex streicek Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:31:52 +0000 http://jordansjournal.net/?p=162#comment-606 Chris: I would like your thoughts on this one! We are in a situation where we offered a "work share" program to our employees. The idea is that as a company we are forced to reduce hours. This naturally reduces the pay of employees. But in the work share program offered by the government (we were approved), the employees wages get topped off. So they work the fewer hours but get paid their normal salary. This is a temporary program designed to help business during a rebuild period. We also cut back in a variety of other areas such as personal wages. Myself from $10k/month to $4700, giving back leases, dropping cell phones, etc. etc. etc. We are sacrificing. The important thing for our business is to maintain a core group of employees and talent. This is vital! So as a business we are trying things to keep our core group together. We have no choice but to cut back and have so in all sorts of areas. No one signed up for this program!! This simple message from employees: "we can just go work for someone else to get our hours". This was surprise and huge wake up call. YOu see, an "employee" can get up and go at the drop of a hat with little risk other than the risk of not finding a job or getting paid less. They can walk out the door to the "green grass" A business owner like me with assets, loans, machines, leases, etc. can not get up and go. We carry a different sort of risk level. In my case we actually thought there would be more of a discussion about this but it was revealed that most of our employees only care about "themselves". They did not even think twice about what we were up to. There response was quick and cold and I am thankful they revealed there true heart. Now my decisions become more clear! So what is the difference between a selfish employee and a selfish CEO? Nothing. YOu speak about Corporate abuse and CEO abuse. This happens and is true. But lets keep in mind the affect of "employee" abuse in our discussions here and the power they hold over business like ours. Chris: I would like your thoughts on this one! We are in a situation where we offered a “work share” program to our employees. The idea is that as a company we are forced to reduce hours. This naturally reduces the pay of employees. But in the work share program offered by the government (we were approved), the employees wages get topped off. So they work the fewer hours but get paid their normal salary. This is a temporary program designed to help business during a rebuild period. We also cut back in a variety of other areas such as personal wages. Myself from $10k/month to $4700, giving back leases, dropping cell phones, etc. etc. etc. We are sacrificing.

The important thing for our business is to maintain a core group of employees and talent. This is vital! So as a business we are trying things to keep our core group together. We have no choice but to cut back and have so in all sorts of areas.

No one signed up for this program!! This simple message from employees: “we can just go work for someone else to get our hours”. This was surprise and huge wake up call.

YOu see, an “employee” can get up and go at the drop of a hat with little risk other than the risk of not finding a job or getting paid less. They can walk out the door to the “green grass” A business owner like me with assets, loans, machines, leases, etc. can not get up and go. We carry a different sort of risk level.

In my case we actually thought there would be more of a discussion about this but it was revealed that most of our employees only care about “themselves”. They did not even think twice about what we were up to. There response was quick and cold and I am thankful they revealed there true heart. Now my decisions become more clear!

So what is the difference between a selfish employee and a selfish CEO? Nothing.
YOu speak about Corporate abuse and CEO abuse. This happens and is true. But lets keep in mind the affect of “employee” abuse in our discussions here and the power they hold over business like ours.

]]> By: alex streicek http://jordansjournal.net/2009/03/12/article-for-the-month-of-march/comment-page-1/#comment-605 alex streicek Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:58:44 +0000 http://jordansjournal.net/?p=162#comment-605 We can not lump every owner, ceo, or manager into one group. Some owners are in the midst of rebuilding a business and have to "bust their balls" to rebuild working long hours and reaping benefits. Why? Because everything rests on their shoulders. In this case your comment on Roberts need for "balance" comes into play. Great point! I loved that first sentence of yours. Very important! IHowever in Bobs case he decides what he does! This was his choice inspired by God (not greed) or something else. But he made it alone. Naturally and eventually in a case like Bobs he would have the choice to expand if he wanted. He could hire, provide jobs and transfer some of the work load. This choice may provide him "balance" or may be one big headache for him. But! This is his choice. CEO's are hired help! They are not Bob. . They are usually hired to work hard and long hours but they have a duty to guide a larger operation. (but as you say and I agree 110%, there are so many abuses) Some CEO's are compensated different rates due to their reputation, skill, education and operate in all types of manners. This person may make ten times the amount a peon like Bobby makes or what I make but this has nothing to do with smarts. I think at the end of the day our world is composed of all types. One one hand you have Bob. On the other you have CEO. One is a lone rider. One is hired help. The loner has to find balance but all of his choices rest on his shoulders. It is his right to decide which path to take. The hired guy has to operate ethically and in the best interest of the Corporation both in the short and long term. If the loner or the hired help abuses his staff, does not perform, etc, only failure will come. Judgement day is always around the corner. The question of pay, limiting salary, etc. in my mind is not important. What is important is "balance" and I think you hit on that. We can not lump every owner, ceo, or manager into one group. Some owners are in the midst of rebuilding a business and have to “bust their balls” to rebuild working long hours and reaping benefits. Why? Because everything rests on their shoulders. In this case your comment on Roberts need for “balance” comes into play. Great point! I loved that first sentence of yours. Very important! IHowever in Bobs case he decides what he does! This was his choice inspired by God (not greed) or something else. But he made it alone.

Naturally and eventually in a case like Bobs he would have the choice to expand if he wanted. He could hire, provide jobs and transfer some of the work load. This choice may provide him “balance” or may be one big headache for him. But! This is his choice.

CEO’s are hired help! They are not Bob. . They are usually hired to work hard and long hours but they have a duty to guide a larger operation. (but as you say and I agree 110%, there are so many abuses) Some CEO’s are compensated different rates due to their reputation, skill, education and operate in all types of manners. This person may make ten times the amount a peon like Bobby makes or what I make but this has nothing to do with smarts.

I think at the end of the day our world is composed of all types. One one hand you have Bob. On the other you have CEO. One is a lone rider. One is hired help. The loner has to find balance but all of his choices rest on his shoulders. It is his right to decide which path to take. The hired guy has to operate ethically and in the best interest of the Corporation both in the short and long term. If the loner or the hired help abuses his staff, does not perform, etc, only failure will come. Judgement day is always around the corner.

The question of pay, limiting salary, etc. in my mind is not important. What is important is “balance” and I think you hit on that.

]]> By: Chris http://jordansjournal.net/2009/03/12/article-for-the-month-of-march/comment-page-1/#comment-604 Chris Wed, 07 Oct 2009 05:24:32 +0000 http://jordansjournal.net/?p=162#comment-604 Robert, if you keep working that many hours you will work yourself right into an early grave. You are now expecting a child, too, right? Find the balance. That's the first thing. Number two, I know you don't make much more than $200 K/year. Who do you think you're speaking to? Lol. If you worked more normal hours (50-60 hours/week), you would not be making more than $200 K/year. This proves my point. Most people who actually have to work, like you and I, aren't capable of making more than 200 K/year when they work normal hours, raise a family and fulfill other activities. And once you have others working within your "team" or corporation, they need to be compensated fairly for their time. This brings me back to my point. Look at some of the large corporations in North America and their CEO's and ask yourself why they are making $1 million dollars/year or in some cases $10 million... Are they then working 200 hours/week? That's a laugh! Most of them play about ten hours of golf a week... Or, ask yourself this. You are one of the most intelligent individuals in the lower mainland when it comes to navigating the legal system, your ability to remember things, think quickly and even the manner in which you articulate your thoughts and reason. If you are only making 200 K, are these CEO's geniuses? Do they do the work of ten men? I think we know the answer to this question... Robert, if you keep working that many hours you will work yourself right into an early grave. You are now expecting a child, too, right? Find the balance. That’s the first thing. Number two, I know you don’t make much more than $200 K/year. Who do you think you’re speaking to? Lol. If you worked more normal hours (50-60 hours/week), you would not be making more than $200 K/year. This proves my point. Most people who actually have to work, like you and I, aren’t capable of making more than 200 K/year when they work normal hours, raise a family and fulfill other activities. And once you have others working within your “team” or corporation, they need to be compensated fairly for their time. This brings me back to my point.

Look at some of the large corporations in North America and their CEO’s and ask yourself why they are making $1 million dollars/year or in some cases $10 million… Are they then working 200 hours/week? That’s a laugh! Most of them play about ten hours of golf a week… Or, ask yourself this. You are one of the most intelligent individuals in the lower mainland when it comes to navigating the legal system, your ability to remember things, think quickly and even the manner in which you articulate your thoughts and reason. If you are only making 200 K, are these CEO’s geniuses? Do they do the work of ten men? I think we know the answer to this question…

]]> By: Robert http://jordansjournal.net/2009/03/12/article-for-the-month-of-march/comment-page-1/#comment-603 Robert Tue, 06 Oct 2009 17:14:42 +0000 http://jordansjournal.net/?p=162#comment-603 What if someone works much harder than the typical worker in the population? Take for example my case. I no longer employ that many people, because I discovered that, even though I paid the highest hourly rates in my industry, the employee pool in this market was lazy and proved the theory: "Give them an inch, and they will take a mile." Since eliminating most staff and working on a smaller scale, profits are up. To me, a 40-hour work week would be a vacation. If I work 100 hours per week, which I often enjoy, my time should be compensated more than some lazy labourer who does not give a crap about anything other than checking out of work exactly when he hits the 8 hour mark on the day and 40 hour mark on the week. That's their choice. This country provides a lot of opportunity for those with work ethic, and those with the guts to risk all in a business venture, to succeed and make a good living. I make more than $200,000 per year now because I work my ass off, and my clients prefer my work over that of my competitors, which allows me to bill more per hour. The clients are willing to pay that, and in the case of my industry, that fee is cost effective and to the benefit of the public interest. How do you distinguish who makes more money and why, and how do you put a cap on that? What if someone works much harder than the typical worker in the population? Take for example my case. I no longer employ that many people, because I discovered that, even though I paid the highest hourly rates in my industry, the employee pool in this market was lazy and proved the theory: “Give them an inch, and they will take a mile.” Since eliminating most staff and working on a smaller scale, profits are up. To me, a 40-hour work week would be a vacation. If I work 100 hours per week, which I often enjoy, my time should be compensated more than some lazy labourer who does not give a crap about anything other than checking out of work exactly when he hits the 8 hour mark on the day and 40 hour mark on the week. That’s their choice. This country provides a lot of opportunity for those with work ethic, and those with the guts to risk all in a business venture, to succeed and make a good living. I make more than $200,000 per year now because I work my ass off, and my clients prefer my work over that of my competitors, which allows me to bill more per hour. The clients are willing to pay that, and in the case of my industry, that fee is cost effective and to the benefit of the public interest. How do you distinguish who makes more money and why, and how do you put a cap on that?

]]> By: Chris http://jordansjournal.net/2009/03/12/article-for-the-month-of-march/comment-page-1/#comment-602 Chris Tue, 06 Oct 2009 04:50:24 +0000 http://jordansjournal.net/?p=162#comment-602 Implementing this salary cap would come from OUR elected government. That is the operative part. At this time, the Canadian government is not of the people. It is of the Rockefellers, The Rothschilds and their colleagues: Henry Kissinger, Timothy Geithner, Allan Greenspan, The Bush family, The Queen of England and the rest of the useless monarchy... Yes, the corruption runs deep, but it was because of these people and their practice of Centralized, Private Banking, that our forefathers came to North America for a life of freedom and fairness. Private Central Banking has to go first. Until these evil money changers are brought to trial for extortion and convicted, and the Centralized Banking practice of the U.S. and Canada is closed down and brought back under the control of the electorate, we can't deal effectively with the other issues at hand. It must start by offering a fair money system by and for the people. You are right, it might very well come to a revolution to bring about this change. They are certainly on the brink in the U.S. Canadians won't stand for it much longer after that, either. After this takes place, we will be able to implement the salary caps, as well. Because about 90% of the population doesn't make $200,000/year there would be very little protest, especially when the whole dynamic of capitalistic society as we know it will have changed. Implementing this salary cap would come from OUR elected government. That is the operative part. At this time, the Canadian government is not of the people. It is of the Rockefellers, The Rothschilds and their colleagues: Henry Kissinger, Timothy Geithner, Allan Greenspan, The Bush family, The Queen of England and the rest of the useless monarchy… Yes, the corruption runs deep, but it was because of these people and their practice of Centralized, Private Banking, that our forefathers came to North America for a life of freedom and fairness. Private Central Banking has to go first.

Until these evil money changers are brought to trial for extortion and convicted, and the Centralized Banking practice of the U.S. and Canada is closed down and brought back under the control of the electorate, we can’t deal effectively with the other issues at hand. It must start by offering a fair money system by and for the people. You are right, it might very well come to a revolution to bring about this change. They are certainly on the brink in the U.S. Canadians won’t stand for it much longer after that, either. After this takes place, we will be able to implement the salary caps, as well. Because about 90% of the population doesn’t make $200,000/year there would be very little protest, especially when the whole dynamic of capitalistic society as we know it will have changed.

]]> By: alex streicek http://jordansjournal.net/2009/03/12/article-for-the-month-of-march/comment-page-1/#comment-601 alex streicek Mon, 05 Oct 2009 23:59:49 +0000 http://jordansjournal.net/?p=162#comment-601 I am certain there are many companies that are full of waste and sacrifice money on individuals who twiddle their thumbs. This is common-place and very frustrating to many. I sense your frustration with this. These companies in my mind are failures. Let them fail. Contrary to this there are many companies who are efficiently run, are good for employees, and have long term success due to the fact they do make their employees successful and give opportunity. These types of companies have to hire and attract those who have the vision to make a company successful. Very few can lead a company or corporation with success. Those who have this ability must be fairly paid. What is fair? What is fair is what a company, a board, an owner is willing to pay! I still can not get my head around an argument whereby there is a limit on salary. I can only see this happening thru some sort of revolution or war whereby a new system of government is forced upon us. Again I see what your are saying and agree with many points. But practically speaking with all the bad companies, bad mortgages, bad investments, bad owners, bad managers and bad news out there in this world there are just as many or more good people, solid mortgages, sound investments, and good stories. Tell me how you would implement this salary cap. What sort of problems would occur? How long would it take? I am certain there are many companies that are full of waste and sacrifice money on individuals who twiddle their thumbs. This is common-place and very frustrating to many. I sense your frustration with this. These companies in my mind are failures. Let them fail.

Contrary to this there are many companies who are efficiently run, are good for employees, and have long term success due to the fact they do make their employees successful and give opportunity. These types of companies have to hire and attract those who have the vision to make a company successful. Very few can lead a company or corporation with success. Those who have this ability must be fairly paid. What is fair? What is fair is what a company, a board, an owner is willing to pay!

I still can not get my head around an argument whereby there is a limit on salary. I can only see this happening thru some sort of revolution or war whereby a new system of government is forced upon us. Again I see what your are saying and agree with many points. But practically speaking with all the bad companies, bad mortgages, bad investments, bad owners, bad managers and bad news out there in this world there are just as many or more good people, solid mortgages, sound investments, and good stories.

Tell me how you would implement this salary cap. What sort of problems would occur? How long would it take?

]]> By: Chris http://jordansjournal.net/2009/03/12/article-for-the-month-of-march/comment-page-1/#comment-599 Chris Sat, 03 Oct 2009 07:02:16 +0000 http://jordansjournal.net/?p=162#comment-599 There is no denying that there should be an incentive. However, I feel that $200 K is enough incentive. It's a level that most people do not attain, anyway. And if outside of one's other investments (stocks, real estate etc) someone works in the collective context of a corporation or "team" and he/she is drawing a salary that is largely disproportional to that of the rest of the team, there is a problem within that paradigm. We're not talking about a new employee making $30 K versus the owner making $200 K, we're talking about experienced people who run the business on their own and then you have in place layers and layers of useless managers that do virtually nothing productive except elevate prices, attempt to look busy in meetings and then make $300 to million K/year... Houston, we have a problem! There is no denying that there should be an incentive. However, I feel that $200 K is enough incentive. It’s a level that most people do not attain, anyway. And if outside of one’s other investments (stocks, real estate etc) someone works in the collective context of a corporation or “team” and he/she is drawing a salary that is largely disproportional to that of the rest of the team, there is a problem within that paradigm. We’re not talking about a new employee making $30 K versus the owner making $200 K, we’re talking about experienced people who run the business on their own and then you have in place layers and layers of useless managers that do virtually nothing productive except elevate prices, attempt to look busy in meetings and then make $300 to million K/year… Houston, we have a problem!

]]> By: alex streicek http://jordansjournal.net/2009/03/12/article-for-the-month-of-march/comment-page-1/#comment-598 alex streicek Sat, 03 Oct 2009 02:01:08 +0000 http://jordansjournal.net/?p=162#comment-598 I agree money does not buy happiness. However from ancient times to the present, man and women have been plying their trade to make a buck or to trade something. The idea of capping something in the form of a "salary cap" may in fact cap the human spirit. When that happens we have war! I think the bigger issue has to do with "ethics" and "economic regulations" in a society. Really if money is meaningless what is the difference between $50K and $400K I agree and see your point. There are many forms of incentive out there. I just can not get my head around the idea of salary capping execs. at $200K in our current day. I am not sure what this will accomplish. Alex I agree money does not buy happiness. However from ancient times to the present, man and women have been plying their trade to make a buck or to trade something. The idea of capping something in the form of a “salary cap” may in fact cap the human spirit. When that happens we have war! I think the bigger issue has to do with “ethics” and “economic regulations” in a society.

Really if money is meaningless what is the difference between $50K and $400K

I agree and see your point. There are many forms of incentive out there.

I just can not get my head around the idea of salary capping execs. at $200K in our current day. I am not sure what this will accomplish.

Alex

]]> By: Chris http://jordansjournal.net/2009/03/12/article-for-the-month-of-march/comment-page-1/#comment-596 Chris Thu, 01 Oct 2009 06:13:47 +0000 http://jordansjournal.net/?p=162#comment-596 Hello Alex and thank you for tuning in on my chat with Bill Good on CKNW 980. I will have the clip posted here at Jordan's Journal soon. To address your comment pertaining to "incentives", I would explain it this way. There are numerous ways we can "grow" as people. One way we can grow is by studying the Bible and learning the application of biblical principles like: forgiveness, repentance, sharing, compassion, love, joy, peace and patience. This, to name just a few key examples. If what you are referring to as incentives has to do with monetary or material gain, then this is precisely my the point about issuing salary caps. What does making a million or even ten million dollars a year really do (besides causing hyper inflation, which will effect buying power for average citizens)? It really does nothing. It doesn't buy happiness or make you a better person. It is self indulgence. With respect to the gangs within the lower mainland, they are really no different than the Wall Street banker boys: the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds, the Timothy Geithners or others who aspire to this mentality. This supports my point. The reality in today's western culture is that the average person does not make $200,000/year- nowhere near... Salary capping at that level does not take away incentive, rather, it gives individuals a well-balanced incentive. An incentive that does not permit a 2% of the population to become extremely wealthy on the backs of a disproportionate majority who don't have the time, the business connections or access to the insider corruption to stop themselves from being swindled. It is fair capitalism rather than what we currently have, which is fascism... Hello Alex and thank you for tuning in on my chat with Bill Good on CKNW 980. I will have the clip posted here at Jordan’s Journal soon. To address your comment pertaining to “incentives”, I would explain it this way. There are numerous ways we can “grow” as people. One way we can grow is by studying the Bible and learning the application of biblical principles like: forgiveness, repentance, sharing, compassion, love, joy, peace and patience. This, to name just a few key examples. If what you are referring to as incentives has to do with monetary or material gain, then this is precisely my the point about issuing salary caps. What does making a million or even ten million dollars a year really do (besides causing hyper inflation, which will effect buying power for average citizens)? It really does nothing. It doesn’t buy happiness or make you a better person. It is self indulgence.

With respect to the gangs within the lower mainland, they are really no different than the Wall Street banker boys: the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds, the Timothy Geithners or others who aspire to this mentality. This supports my point. The reality in today’s western culture is that the average person does not make $200,000/year- nowhere near… Salary capping at that level does not take away incentive, rather, it gives individuals a well-balanced incentive. An incentive that does not permit a 2% of the population to become extremely wealthy on the backs of a disproportionate majority who don’t have the time, the business connections or access to the insider corruption to stop themselves from being swindled. It is fair capitalism rather than what we currently have, which is fascism…

]]>