Interesting concept, but... If you start a firm, and you're responsible for all of it's operations and all of it's staff then I think it is more than feasible that you're worth more than 12 times the lowest paid employee.

No way CEOs work hard for their money, the only time this should be policed is if the company isn't performing and staff and consumers are at a risk of being left in the dark.

Interesting experiment if they vote it in.

1:12 is pretty low though. They should compensate it with stock or something so at least their rewarded when the company they're in charge of does well.

I think it needs to be a mix of both limiting managerial salaries and also accountability for company direction/performance.

x12 is too low a value and also possibly the wrong metric, assuming you have someone on minimum wage (~$32K) it would limit you to ~$388K which in a company which has revenue in the billions is too small.

It should be for everyone, otherwise you will have have rich bastards with different titles.

I also don't think the board/managers should control their own salary in any direct or indirect fashion ( should also be applied to politicians).

I'd rather see CEO's whose decision cause harm to staff, the economy, share holders or the public, be dealt with more strictly then every CEO's incomes capped.

The results of the GFC point to this being even more unlikely to happen. There seems to be little to no accountability at all for CEO's.

The few CEO's that do get fired still get massive severance packages, not to mention that they still have their luxury house and yacht along with their Cayman Islands account to fall back on. Meanwhile the retirees that have their life savings invested in the company now have nothing.

This type of rule isn't to reduce CEO's incomes but rather increase each employee's income based on the success of the company.

Nahh it would just mean that a large portion of Director money would not be in wages but instead through company options/shares and other forms of payment.

why not just make it that everyone gets paid the same.

That's some fine logic right there.

why not just make it that everyone gets paid the same.

Да товарищ

Socialists unite!!!

I simply can't understand for the life of me why the general public like to pretend that companies are some sort of charity or government type institution where they can dictate how much a company earns and how much a company pays it's employees just because they don't like how much they are being paid?

So what if a company pays it's CEO $50 million a year? The company has earnt that money(With the CEO at the helm making the decisions) and can do whatever it likes with that money and it's up to the owners (the shareholders) to decide what it does with the money and who gets paid what, not some unemployed inner city socialist hipster who is angry he isn't rich.

It would be equivalent of Bob the local fish and chip shop owner working his ass off to make his business successful and making $1 million dollars for the year only to have some socialist hipster walk in off the street and say "oh hey bob, you earn too much, lets put a cap on what you earn because i am currently on the dole and dont earn much, so it isnt fair"

No one has a right to dictate what companies earn and how much the directors/CEO's/management are paid except the owners.

Either way I think it's a great message, it should hopefully distribute the wealth a bit more evenly.

Yep classic socialist redistribution of wealth. You don't have to earn it, you'll just simply be given it!

I have so many ideas about what to do with other people's money. I have no money.

Fpot: there is still no limit on what CEO's can earn with this idea.

Nice topic Zapo.

CEO's make decisions like "we need to increase profits" what happens after that?


Ill leave this here.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/best-companies/

The government telling people the limits on what they can earn sounds extreme to me.

you mean like minimum wage?

I like the idea of setting max wage to a factor of min wage. But the corporate snakes will find ways to slither around any legislation so it wont work as intended - they already do it with tax.

"oh hey bob, you earn too much, lets put a cap on what you earn because i am currently on the dole and dont earn much, so it isnt fair"

How is someone on the dole at all relevant to the minimum wage of their employees?

It would be equivalent of Bob the local fish and chip shop owner working his ass off to make his business successful and making $1 million dollars for the year

this sort of law wouldn't affect a fish and chip shop. seriously, a fish and chip shop owner would be lucky to have a turnover of $300k a year, owners for small stores like this normally make $10k - $30k a year, or if self managed, $40 - $90k a year. (as it would include their own wage). The only way to get that sort of wage would be to have a massive chain of shops.

That doesn't seem like a bad thing to me, reducing the incentive for any individual to acquire large market share in a single industry due to downward pressure allows smaller players to gain footholds.

It would be very good in those particular circumstances.

However, Considering most CEO's are also shareholders, and most CEO's don't earn their massive pay packets from their wage, but from their stock, this would pretty much just limit owner operator expansion, while doing nothing to address much larger corporation greed.

Much better to just put higher taxes on the big income earners, also closing the significant amount of tax loopholes the wealthy have access to would go a long way.

why not just make it that everyone gets paid the same.

I have so many ideas about what to do with other people's money. I have no money.

Strangest thing I've ever heard from a LNP sympathiser... you sure you aren't a closet Labor supporter after all?

the minimum wage just creates unemployment. what happens to the person who is only worth $11/hour and their minimum wage is $12 an hour. the worker gets $0 per hour and goes on unemployment benefits. that is why youth unemployment is so high in australia and why the retail and hospitality sectors are f***ed (not to mention manufacturing).

just as a maximum CEO wage means Australian companies will get the cream of the crap. if the lowest paid worker makes say $45k then that means the CEO makes $540k!? The whole notion is laughable.

socialists are sickened by people earning what they are capable of. they either have to limit it or tax the f*** out of it. socialists dogoders are full of good ideas about how to control and limit other people's money, they should focus their energies on developing products and services customers want, thus growing the economy of their country and all people will in turn benefit. envy is one of the seven deadly sins.

socialism didn't turn china into a booming economy, they saw hong kong and wanted a piece of it too.

the most ironic part of it is that socialism seems to thrive in economies that are already "made". it's simply a misplaced guilty conscience with terrible unintended consequences.

similarly, refugees and migrants are only a problem because the host country then has to give them all these benefits paid for by the poor workers. refugees and migrants were not a problem for first world countries pre-socialism when it had no welfare because everyone got the same - zilch. back then, if you wanted to take a leaky boat across the world in pursuit of happiness and wealth? best of luck to you.

migrants didn't come to america for the benefits, they came to make their fortune. now refugees come to australia for the freebies. what a sick and counter-intuitive system that has evolved. our governments have developed programs to incentivise non-work!

should we put a limit on share prices?

should we put a limit on mobile phone prices?

every time an arbitrary limit by some d******* in Canberra they are creating

a) a market distortion and
b) an opportunity for evasion and black markets.

WAY TO GO.

I don't get it. This sounds like something you'd be strongly against and actually know about, yet all you can manage are one line logical fallacy s***-posts.edit: I'll be honest with you. It sounds like a bad idea at face value to me as well. The government telling people the limits on what they can earn sounds extreme to me. I could really go either way - it depends on who had the better argument. I know you don't care what anyone thinks, but surely you must have some interest in defending your ideological position. It just makes you look as dumb as s*** when something comes up which addresses your specific areas of interest and you make posts I'd expect a high-schooler would make.

tbh I can't say I blame him, it's not like the principle of this idea hasn't been done to death on this forum alone already. sometimes when these tired topics come up it's kind of like:


imo the biggest failing of democracy and freemarket system is the common punter's complacency. you. me. that guy there. most of us go about our week doing very little to try and effect change, and in fact support the exploitation of the system by those fewer people who are more driven

Infi, I always thought the idea behind a minimum wage was so that people doing work worth $45ph aren't employed doing work at $20ph, while the earns big bucks


one of the reasons I understand to the high un-employment rate is the quality of jobs are lower than some people are willing to work for, or they have work, and had been unable to convert this to full time, so in order to get a better lifestyle they are on the dole, actively seeking work, while doing under the table work or something

as for share holders capping the wages, this only works if the business has a broad, informed share holder base, but there are so many that are now are owned by investment companies, and if they don't vote, half the time the vote just reverts to a board member proxy

If you work a full time wage you should not be living in poverty.

you can thank your friendly government for that: regulation in virtually every aspect of our lives has driven up the cost of living to make middle class workers feel poor! this is especially relevant regarding housing prices. but don't worry government has all sorts of rebates and government assistance program to help you from the tax you just paid them.

however for some reason the herd seems to take comfort in this regulation. i guess the best solution is to pass more regulations and to punish businesses a bit more. those business guys have it so easy.

Infi, I always thought the idea behind a minimum wage was so that people doing work worth $45ph aren't employed doing work at $20ph, while the earns big bucks

1. the market tells you how much an iphone is worth so why should a bureaucrat in canberra tell you how much an hour of labour should be worth?

2. my first job out of uni was on a s***** rate.. then i learned some stuff, asked my boss for a payrise, he said no so i got another job. that is the way it goes. if employers dont meet the market, workers go elsewhere.

(of course unless you are an employer - its the opposite, there is another brilliant regulation that makes it virtually impossible to dismiss a s*** employee and even if you follow the rules, days of your time and thousands of your dollars can get tied up in tribunal proceedings before another canberra bureaucrat to tell you whether you have been good or bad. aren't we so lucky to have so many commissars helping us to run our businesses?)

if things don't change and keep going the way they are going there is going to be a f*****g revolution I can tell you that now.

I think the only thing that could possibly cause a revolution in Australia is if beer or Foxtel got too expensive. or if they moved the footy finals.

Yeh sorta goes against the idea of capitalism, but CEO salaries are getting to the point of unsustainability so surely these CEOs would of expected a backlash eventually.

Capping CEO pay should be something the shareholders do..

A smart investor would say UNCAPPED CEO pay - base it on % of profit! If the CEO can bring in a huge return, they deserve the chance at high returns.

If someone capped your pay - when would you stop work? When you hit the target right!

Capping CEO pay should be something the shareholders do

If I had a bunch of shares in a company and I heard that they were proposing to give the CEO a massive pay cut so that the companies lowest-to-mid paid employees got a massive pay increase I'd be all for it. Doesn't that have the potential to drive morale sky-high? Of course, perhaps the CEO would quit, and all of a sudden they have to attract someone new to the job at a massively reduced rate. How do CEO talent pools work? Is it kind of like sport where there are a small bunch of massively talented individuals (like the Tendulkars or Warnes in the world of cricket) or is it pretty much anyone with the right amount of education and experience would be capable of getting the job done?

Don't a few fabulously rich people already only pay themselves a one dollar salary and get their payment some other way? Doesn't sound like it would work.

The thought of paying some lowlife janitor more money just repulses me and I refuse to entertain the thought, Id rather jump off a building.

Seems the divide between rich and poor is the yardstick for achievement.

Im not concerned about how much a CEO makes.
If it bothered me Id prolly try to become one the same way they did.

Im more concerned with how many hours a week I have to work to give money to the Government to piss up against the wall.

The quickest way to increase wages is to lower Taxes and get Government out of our lives.
Smaller Government + Lower Taxes = Higher wages

but no, the solution is to punish success ?
I wonder what happens to Society when success is punished so hard that people give up trying ?

Infi, are you comparing some-ones ability to feed themselves as an equivalent to owning a smart phone?

The market has done a fine job of feeding people since the dawn of civilization. The world has more than enough food every person. Inability to obtain food is purely due to governments: corrupts governments, government tarrifs, wars. Don't blame the employer, the employer is the job CREATOR. Government is the job destroyer.

If on the other hand you are talking about ensuring enough for people to have "nice things" then yes that is also the market's job. It's called aspiration. If that has failed then government provides a safety net - an ever expanding safety net - of welfare programs. Latch onto one of those tits.

Regulation of wages achieves one thing only - unemployment. Regulation of wages only ensure people become dependent on the State and hurts those starting out or trying to get back into the employment market - the minimum wages tells people there are certain deals it is illegal to make - illegal! between free people.

In relation to CEO wages, regulation ensures Australian companies will only attract CEOs willing to work for the nominated rate. It is the inverse to the minimum wage.

Maybe not, but Russia did beat America to space. so its not entirely without merit.

yeah that worked out great.

The best regulations government can make to HELP the economy are ones ensuring transparency. Let the capital holders decides what is fair. And for the record, current Australian law requires that if 30% or more of shareholders vote down a remuneration report 2 years in a row, then the whole Board is required to be automatically up for re-election.

What is so evil about letting people choose what to do with their own money? Why the obsession of making laws restricting people's freedom of property rights? Let people pursue happiness and freedom in an environment of mutual agreement.

I like how RuleofBookz makes up any old bulls*** and claims that's what infi is saying.

without min wage the bulk of people would never earn enough to be taxed (they would fall below the threshold)

so the gov has a vested interest.

But that said the way of life in aust is very high. prob one of the best in the world. thats because a fair day work = a fair days pay. u cant let employers set what is fair for obvious reasons.

But we all enjoy the aust way of life. we dont have a few well off gated communities a few so so area's and then the bulk of the country are poverty stricken ghettos - like Brazil. No in Aust we have big cities full of suburbs that are nice. thats min wage. thats fair pay for a fair days work in action. Parks, clean streets play grounds, nature reserves libraries art centers etc all because we have a big workforce getting payed ok and paying tax.

i just dont see the issue with a CEO wanting a certain amount of money for their wage that they therefore have to ensure that those whom they have responsibility over also get a fair cut of the profit ie. 12x what is the company min wage. If the CEO wants more cash then raise the min wage obviously the corp can afford to give the little guy a sweeter deal if the CEO can ask for a sweeter deal?

I think that is the model they were using in parts of Africa.

Africa is run by warlords and corrupt governments. What is your point?

I thought you were against government welfare?

No, I am against an expansive welfare system, where ever year the number of recipients increases and taxpayers decreases.

One uses guns and one deals in private mutual consent of free willing parties.

But remember there are no laws anymore.

offtopic?

not really, you did say "Let the capital holders decides what is fair".

in relation to the topic of the thread you f*****g imbecile.

The economy and society and everything isnt some static thing. You tweak something here, change a law or whatever, then its going to put something somewhere else out of whack over there. Intended and unintended consequences.

And one of the fastest ways to do that is have the government interfering with private enterprise to f*** up the absolute simplest part an economic system - the supply and demand.

name one other scenario (aside from taxation which is government enforced by threat of imprisonment) in all of our society where one free party is forced to pay more than they want to,

Third party car insurance?

I am starting to lean towards the minimum wage being a bad thing - at least, the current minimum wage standard we have here. I am not convinced we could get by without one completely, but I certainly think it would be an interesting experiment. The high minimum rate drives up everything .

We would almost certainly employ more people (on a casual basis) if the minimum wage wasn't so high.

Rulez, CEO's are paid s*** loads for a reason. They get s*** done. The ones that don't are remembered.

Anyone investing in the stock market should be looking at the Directors of a company. They have a past history for the most part.

People put money, large sums of money into a company with a strong director at the helm.

People don't put money into companies that piss all their profits away on the lowest paid workers. Shareholders want a return on the money they invested, not equal pay and whatnot. If a director has a strong track record of providing strong rates of return on the companies they sit on, people will be happy to have them be paid at $1,000,000 or whatever, providing the rate of return on their investment works in their favour.

$1,000,000 on a director and $15,000,000 in wages for the rest of the company, or $600,000 on the director and $20,000,000 for the wages for the rest of the company, the shareholders know which is the better deal.

It isn't the CEO's and directors you should be arbitrarily punishing, it is the shareholders you need to look at...

Infi, you clearly have a lot more faith in businesses and corporations ability to do the right thing than I do. Didn't we have a GFC? Didn't Apple (and others) exploit workers in China with horrendous wages & conditions until the media made a big deal about it?

I'm sorry, but there needs to be rules and regulations in place around how companies can operate. Successful companies and individuals should be taxed appropriately and there should be less loop holes so they can't get out of their financial obligations.

Rules and regulations set by idiot government who run up massive public debt and waste money on all sorts of perks and largesse for themselves? Yeah rooght.

If Apple is so evil then surely all the workers would know and stay away from the company right? Just as in the grapes of wrath, the ambitious will take a chamce on themselves and endure a little hardship to get a leg in the door.

And for the record I earn f*** all (less than when I was a public servant) and have been on a self imposed pay cut for the last 2 years because times are so tough. So to the bank execs making $7m i say good luck to them and ignore the haters.

How is someone on the dole at all relevant to the minimum wage of their employees?

You missed my point entirely in my example. I was pointing out that people hysterically scream for CEO pay to be capped, dont not even work for any of the companies or are even associated with the companies, but are just jealous and angry that they don't earn much so they want a hand out or as socialists call it "income equality"

This is where my exaggerated example came into play(to which you then ignored and went on a big off topic about how much fish and chip owners really earn which was completely irrelevant to the point i was making)

It would be like you walking into a business that you have completely no association with and saying to the owner "oh hey i think you earn too much, what you make should be capped because i don't earn much"

Can you blame the Directors and the shareholders, if as far as they can tell, many millions of people are happy with the way business is run as reflected in the continued purchase of product?

Some of this is up to consumers - I feel like if it was revealed tomorrow that Apple make iPhones out of baby seals and puppies, it wouldn't impact their sales too much (this is probably where I diverge from infi's point of view, in that I think /some/ regulation is an absolute must-have - the vast majority of citizens simply don't care about where their stuff comes from and regulation is required to stop tragedy of the commons kind of issues, etc, etc).

Arguably, Steve Jobs earned every goddamn cent he was paid as CEO, if not more

If you want to operate in our country, you want to sell your product here then you will pay taxes as we deem appropriate. There needs to be global action on this.

I agree, except probably not in the direction you are thinking.

At the end of the day there will always be nations and/or states that provide tax haven opportunities - especially as things get more and more digital and the idea of virtual corporations becomes more of a big deal.

I suspect the solution isn't to tighten the screws locally, because it will just encourage people to look harder to find better deals overseas, or ultimately just move all their profits offshore.

I would rather see countries attempting to compete with better incentives and lower corporate tax rates and finding new and interesting ways of generating revenue (and, along with infi, reducing their waste spend on bulls***).

Note however I am a bit of a massive socialist at heart and think things like healthcare, education, roads, electricity, water, basic Internet, etc, should be provided as a government service to citizens - so I think collecting tax is extremely important. But if you make the corporate environment hostile, everyone will just go elsewhere.

True anecdotal story:

I was down at Parliament House in Canberra months ago sitting on a panel about encouraging IT innovation in Australia. After the panel I was approached by two luverly ladies who wanted to have a chat. Turned out they worked for the British consulate here in Australia - they were basically hitting up Australian companies (in PARLIAMENT HOUSE in CANBERRA) to tell them about the benefits of moving their business to the UK.

The benefits, btw, are pretty f*****g good. Massive R&D tax incentives, massive incentives for patents, massive services, etc. They are not messing around. They are making an environment where tech companies can go and do awesome stuff.

Anyway, I see capping CEO pay like this. It's just another way to drive those CEOs off shore to places where they don't have those caps in place. We need those corporate stooges to drive our industry (well, the good ones, anyway). They need to be compensated in a way that encourages their hard work and success, or they'll just go somewhere where their abilities are recognised.

I wouldn't be opposed the idea of a discussion about CEO wage regulations.

Shareholders don't have a strong record on putting meaningful checks in place.

If a CEO is worth his salary to his company than cool but as this graph shows, and its from Alan Kohler so its not super socialist propaganda, the relationship between 'paying the best get the best' is tenuous at best.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/4855052-3x2-700x467.jpg

Couple of things I'll add:

- Executive remuneration is always heavily scrutinized by shareholders. If executives are overpaid or poorly governed, people move their money where they see better value.

- Executives get paid a lot because they are in demand and there are few people that can perform these roles effectively.

- Performance based compensation is tricky. You don't want to motivate a CEO to pursue short term goals that may not favor, or may distract from long term objectives. Shareholders can negatively influence the prospects of a company when they are driven by dividend yields, so in some cases the board and the CEO need to know when to give the finger to the shareholders.

- Another problem with performance based compensation is attribution. Businesses in manufacturing, retail, tourism and hospitality sectors are struggling at the moment because of macroeconomic factors that they have no influence over. A great executive who can navigate a company through 'stormy seas' may produce unimpressive results on paper whilst other executives receive accolades for standing at the helm of a company at the right place at the right time.

I'm all in favour of capping pay, though I think the figures need a bit of revising. I don't think you're going to get many executives agreeing to 12 times the lowest paid staff member.

Maybe 12:1 of the median salary in the company, and 20:1 of the minimum.

money is not a very successful or appealing motivator it should not be a primary focus

right back at you kid

You awful, awful man.

ok then the CEOs shouldn't have any problem because you quoted some internet articles. problem solved let's move on!

Richard Brandson is an interesting fella.

ok so all of the CEOs will just go on base salary, you've proved your point. money is not a motivator. sorry.

are u f*****g kidding removing that post? for the reason "citations needed"?

Yo Rule - you kinda sound like a kid crying. No offence , just an observation. Additionally why does it matter - just agree to disagree and be done with it.

The whole thread is a horrible hypothetical which is a disconnect from reality.

lol massive hissy
report your issue via the process outlined in the rules you agreed to

I didn't remove the one you're complaining about but I've gone ahead and removed the others since

you sure know how to wwebsite

You see unlike you "experts" ive actually Studied BA Business - Management.

And obviously didn't finish it. Or learn anything, for that matter.

I don't think you understand the articles you're referencing.

In the Forbes article, Katzenbach suggest that some recent Neuroscience research further validates Frederick Herzberg's "two-factor" theory (1959) of motivation.

According to Herzberg, individuals are not content with the satisfaction of lower-order needs at work, for example, those associated with minimum salary levels or safe and pleasant working conditions. Rather, individuals look for the gratification of higher-level psychological needs having to do with achievement, recognition, responsibility, advancement, and the nature of the work itself.

Herzberg suggests that people there are two factors to employee motivation "motivators" and "hygene factors".

Motivators are more concerned with the actual job itself. For instance how interesting the work is and how much opportunity it gives for extra responsibility, recognition and promotion. Hygiene factors are factors which ‘surround the job’ rather than the job itself. For example a worker will only turn up to work if a business has provided a reasonable level of pay and safe working conditions but these factors will not make him work harder at his job once he is there.

To motivate employees, Herzberg proposed methods such as these:

Job enlargement – workers being given a greater variety of tasks to perform (not necessarily more challenging) which should make the work more interesting.

Job enrichment - involves workers being given a wider range of more complex, interesting and challenging tasks surrounding a complete unit of work. This should give a greater sense of achievement.

Empowerment means delegating more power to employees to make their own decisions over areas of their working life.

This methods were inspired by a guy called Maslow, who came up with his Hierarchy of Needs in 1943.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Maslow's_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg/640px-Maslow's_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg.png

Money helps with this stuff.

Notably, Herzberg viewed pay as a hygiene factor. That is, that pay will motivate someone to get to work but not necessarily motivate them to perform tasks. This is different to Frederick Winslow Taylor's theory of Scientific Management, which suggested that people were basically only motivated by money. Taylor is the godfather of the Efficiency Movement - "Taylorism", but he wasn't much of a psychologist.

"It is only through enforced standardization of methods, enforced adoption of the best implements and working conditions, and enforced cooperation that this faster work can be assured. And the duty of enforcing the adoption of standards and enforcing this cooperation rests with management alone."

- Taylor's Principle of Scientific Management (1911)

That quote sums up Taylorism pretty well. You can also see why Lenin was a big fan and tried to use it to roll out Communism.

Obviously people don't get very motivated working like that and after a few clusterf**** Taylorism had fallen out of favour by 1930. Despite his HR issues, Taylor was a brilliant operations thinker and a major contributor to the Efficiency Movement.

Part of the movement was a guy called Edwards Deming. Post World War 2, he worked with Japanese manufacturers to assist with re-building their economy. A big part of that was getting one particular manufacturer to produce car parts efficiently and Taylor's concepts around continuous improvement would be useful here.

Deming had noticed that traditional Japanese culture took pride in their details (eg food dishes), discipline and speed (eg martial arts), and resourcefulness (eg origami) but this wasn't how Japanese workers were seeing the factory floor. Toyota were able to realize the benefits of some of Taylor's principles because they let factory floor workers design improvements to their operations (like Herzberg would suggest), rather than the managers (Taylor), which empowered employees and developed a culture that has influenced all Japanese manufacturing. Some of the concepts from Toyota Quality Management (aka Lean) that you will see everywhere in workplaces these days are Plan-Do-Check-Act, Kanban, Kaizen etc.

I really wish some people would do a little research before broadcasting their ignorance.

last edited by Nitro at 03:07:51 20/Nov/13

last edited by Nitro at 03:08:45 20/Nov/13

RuleofBooKz, this is another heads up for you buddy. Like in the other thread where Taggs was a gun at what he does, Nitro is a cainer in this field.

If Nitro isn't a CEO or something, he should be.

i notice on the top level of Maslow's hierarchy "Acceptance of fact"

rulz seems to struggled with this one

are you lacking self esteem bro?

If Apple is so evil then surely all the workers would know and stay away from the company right? Just as in the grapes of wrath, the ambitious will take a chamce on themselves and endure a little hardship to get a leg in the door.

just to be clear here..


Are you talking about dudes in Apple retail stores or the IT Engineering slaves in China?

thank you Tollaz0r for the heads up; that was considerate of you. The fact that he is the current gun on AG about business is just what i said: current. You dont know where i fit in. Yet.

But since he brought up Maslows Hierarchy of Needs (1st year uni business content) why dont we focus on this to look at if money should be regarded as a primary motivation for people or just as something secondary?

Be aware that the graphic nitro posted is just one way of looking at maslows hierarchy (the one from wiki but not in many texts). Google it yourself and see how many permutations there are.

So lets take a look working on the one nitro posted). It works like the food pyramid that the bigger slices at the bottom represent important stuff u have to generally have before you can move on. For example on the bottom level we have breathing food and water etc. Its hard to worry about money when you cant breath.

Moving up to the next layer, that of safety, we see money here is the really important drive: employment, resources, property that kind of thing requires money. Thats why we get a job in the 1st place to pay for that stuff. But there are layers above that one right?

So now we get to love and belonging. And here it gets interesting. To me money no longer factors into this. Sure some would say "but with money i have lots of friends". That to me is shallow. You dont have friends because u are rich. And if you think you do then im sorry for you. Same with family and love interests. None of that is about the money. But there are still layers above that. You are a good human being not because of how much you have in the bank but because you are a good human being.

Esteem. Self esteem. Sure there are definitely those out there who think how much money they have = self worth. They think their big bank balance = self worth. Well i dont. You are one of those who think people are impressed by your bank balance? That they respect you just because you have lots of cash? Again. Shallow. Money just serves to distort what this and the last layer is going on about.

And at the last,,, or is it,,, we have self actualization.

Level Seven: Self-Actualization

For years, self-actualization was the top level that a person could ever reach. It was believed to be the area where someone could finally reach their full potential in life. They have gone through each of the levels and completed them to their satisfaction. Now is the time for them to focus on their purpose in life, to push themselves to the limit.

http://lburmaster.hubpages.com/hub/Understanding-Maslows-Hierarchy-of-Needs

The goal of an individual. Unfortunately those who value money above all things never reach this level. Thats why its called self actualization. If you think money as the all important thing a human can aspire too you will lend up empty. What being on this level really means is you realise all the material bulls*** and greed and money = status just doesn't matter.

But you dont see that in the above graphic?

Level Eight: Self-Transcendence

Near the end of his life, Maslow added the eighth level of the pyramid. Above self-fulfullment exists self-transcendence. The highest level now, an individual focuses on helping others. In helping people, they connect with something outside of themselves in aiding others. They feel as if they are apart of something bigger than themselves and reach a new level of being human.

http://lburmaster.hubpages.com/hub/Understanding-Maslows-Hierarchy-of-Needs

here is the same graph with the 8th layer added:

http://www.consciousaging.com/Images/Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.jpg

where on the ladder do people who come on forums to help explain and enlighten that materialistic bulls*** is just that fit?

Money is there. It is a need. It does motivate. But its well well down the list of what really should motivate a fully formed human being. Therefor it is a secondary motivation (or perhaps a third fourth or fifth motivation)

To me pave "money cant buy happiness" is a fact you need to grasp. Maybe you have your own "facts" you think i need to grasp. Fine. But if you think having money, that acquiring more money is the primary goal of your life, and it will buy self esteem then i might say i choose not to see your "facts"

Here is a cute story i once heard. A businessman on holiday to a beautiful country lake see's a fisherman napping by his simple boat on the shore to a beautiful lake. The Businessman went up to the fisher man and asked: why are you not working harder? IF i was you i would work all day and make more money. Then i would be able to buy more boats. Hire more guys. And i would make heaps of money and so i would become successful. Do you think you will become successful taking a nap in the middle of the day like this?

So the fisherman slowly gets up and says: Well i can see what you are saying and i can tell you are a successful businessman and have a lot of money. But tell me this: why are you here?

And the businessman says: well im on a short holiday and enjoying myself. Im busy all year managing my business and making money so im here to relax by this beautiful lake for a few days.

And the fisherman just nods and says: You are here to relax and enjoy yourself? that is what i do every day.

from someone called hogfather being a porkchop is a good thing i take it?

They feel as if they are apart of something bigger than themselves and reach a new level of being human.

i wonder if any of my GA friends remember this from somewhere?

How about intuition... if all the most demanded movie/tv stars, professional sports players and executives demand higher pay maybe it is a motivator? Why is it such a controversial concept?

while we're abolishing minimum wage, why is it that kids cant work 40 hours weeks?

as a business owner (lolz) having to pay adults is such a drag and really cuts into my profits. if only the stupid government would get out of the road and let me pay kids to do 50 hours a week for me i would be able to make so much more money!

That's right, you were the guy who thought critical thinking is a hindrance, ruleofbookz is the guy who hates double blind tests.

let the market set what kids should be paid and how many hours they can work!

some kids mite really really want to work 50 hours a week, why should the government tell them that they cant!

while we're abolishing minimum wage, why is it that kids cant work 40 hours weeks?

as a business owner (lolz) having to pay adults is such a drag and really cuts into my profits. if only the stupid government would get out of the road and let me pay kids to do 50 hours a week for me i would be able to make so much more money!

I'm sure Indian kids can work for you. Probably $20 a month too.

Capitalism! F*** yeah!

because kids need education. adults can make their own decisions. what has this got to do with a minimum wage?

bro, surely disabled kids would be cheaper. Stuff like mopping and picking up garbage can be done if you're missing a limb or slightly retarded. Gotta contribute to society and pull up those bootstraps bro.

Exploiting children is not a viable option and it would not help society. Children are learning, they do not have mature judgment and decision making skills. Children need time to mature and learn basic academic and social skills, that is the purpose of education./ Children with good educaiton can command better jobs and better rates of pay upon graduation. Adults can make their own decisions and decide on what rate of pay they are willing to accept.

You are using a strawman which fpot (the strawman crusader) seems to be latching onto. Trolling while the cricket is postponed - livin large.

you may have been taking the piss but spook was stating that child labour and minimum rates for adults are somehow comparable.

all i care about bro is maximum $$$$$$ from my business dealings. (ie what the market decides my labor force is worth)

last edited by Spook at 16:43:26 24/Nov/13

I heard your mum just raised your allowance bro so congrats on your recent business dealings.

Cool article bro, but it doesn't mention anything about high minimum wages being the reason for youth unemployment. I have a feeling that might just be your own unfounded lolbertarian opinion.

they shoudl totally get not paid at all in any job!

I actually said that our addiction to critical thinking could be an obstacle to our evolution.

I was cutting you some slack by leaving out the details. Addiction to critical thinking being an obstacle to evolution... whoa boy, that's a doozy.

I think I am a compassionate person. I could be wrong though. What have I ever said or done to make you think otherwise?

I put it to you that over-thinking basic human emotions detracts us from our ability to feel.

This is just so vague. It's classic pseudoscience really. How do you over-think an emotion? If you did manage to over-think an emotion, how does it detract our ability to feel? And to feel what? The very emotion we are over-thinking?

In our effort to understand our world and our selves we are becoming complacent or desensitised to the beauty of it.

I kind of get what you mean here, but I see it another way. Just because most of the old mysteries have been disproven by science doesn't mean that we won't get all new ones. And there are a whole truckload of things that will remain mysteries in our lifetime. That's kind of what you meant by beauty isn't it? Things that aren't just black and white and that defy normal convention?

But still

I actually said that our addiction to critical thinking could be an obstacle to our evolution.

wowsers

Spock and Bones.

Yo - Rule, let me fight your battle for you lol:



However, I use the carrot and the stick in my profession - currently the sales team is has no guarantee's. If they dont sell - they get paid minimum. If they hit their target they get paid very well. If they exceed they can earn up to 15% of profits.

as a PRIMARY motivator - if you don't have enough money for X (X being - anything on the low rung of Maslows HoN i.e food / shelter / sex) then people get very motivated to fix that need.

Yo - Rule, let me fight your battle for you lol:

Are you referring to me? Firstly I am not Bookz, he is a 'hipster' from the city and I am a tradie from the burbs.
Secondly, I dont feel as though I am in an argument or a battle. I simply want to bounce my thoughts off you guys to see where it leads.

That was very informative tho Doc thanks. I don't quite know yet how that fits into what I am trying to say but I will give it some thought.

I think I am a compassionate person. I could be wrong though. What have I ever said or done to make you think otherwise?

My last post was a bit ambiguous in its wording I guess, I didnt mean to imply that I was referring to you, as in YOU but you as in everyone. I like to use we and us and our when I talk about society to include myself but I was a tad careless in this case, apologies. I am sure you are a nice guy and I have nothing of any substance against you at all. In fact I appreciate you giving me the time to respond to me.

This is just so vague. It's classic pseudoscience really. How do you over-think an emotion? If you did manage to over-think an emotion, how does it detract our ability to feel? And to feel what? The very emotion we are over-thinking?

I wasnt intending it to be taken as any sort of science. You are trying to quantify emotions into a scientific framework but I don't think this is possible with the knowledge we have now.

At the risk of being vague, I can illustrate exactly what I mean by over thinking an emotion and by what beauty is simply by reminding you that you are asking me what beauty means.

Its more simple than OUR sophisticated minds will allow it to be.

Ah yes of course. That was a week or so ago I think. Fpot confused me with Bookz earlier and and I just thought I'd clear up any confusion.
I really like those animated vids. They're great for people like me who cbf researching a topic for hours.