Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Equal wages is a poor choice... or not

Posted 1 year ago on March 6, 2013, 2:34 p.m. EST by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Often people criticize the 99% Conglomerate for rejecting the idea of forcing Subsidiaries to pay all employees equal wages.

It simply can't happen in Phase 1, but during Phase 1 we draft the "P2 Constitution of the Conglomerate". During Phase 2 we draft the P3 Constitution. In Phase 3 we draft the Constitution for post-Phase 3.

The members of the Conglomerate will indeed be considering how workers should be paid, with different rules for P1, P2 and P3 type Subsidiaries. If you're involved, your influence level will be equal to everyone else, so the Constitutions will be drafted most democratically.

But does it make any sense to pay top managers the lowest wage?

Consider Mondragon Corporation. It's amazingly successful and the workers know it.

"One of the co-operatively and democratically adopted rules governing the MC limits top-paid worker/members to earning 6.5 times the lowest-paid workers. Nothing more dramatically demonstrates the differences distinguishing this from the capitalist alternative organization of enterprises. (In US corporations, CEOs can expect to be paid 400 times an average worker's salary – a rate that has increased 20-fold since 1965.)" http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/24/alternative-capitalism-mondragon

Before I knew about Mondragon (before much development on the Conglomerate idea) I was thinking top should be no more than 30% more than the bottom wage, but I've come to the conclusion that 500% (5 times) more is actually quite fair and workable for a competitive business.

I also want to remind that 400% more is not the same as 400 times more, as some people tend to think. 400% of a wage = the wage x 4. No offense, it's a common mistake.

48 Comments

48 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Kavatz, would you consider a Government run Conglomeration.

A non-profit Government run 'Conglomeration' run and manged by the people.

Where there are no owners, and we all are equal.

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Oh sure, we just have to get there. It's this notion that we can just vote it in or convince government to let us flip a switch... we can't just ram it home, we have to ease it in like a gentleman. hehe (I love Jim Carrey)

analystwanabe99 linked us here to the Venus Project. Have you checked that out?

Anyway, one day we'll be able to democratically decide our destiny. That's when the Conglomerate (the 99% fighting fire with fire, beating them at their own game) is more powerful than today's elite.

I'm not going to pretend I have the best vision of what it looks like beyond the money-based system, but I know it will be a place where no one person has greater freedom or property than anyone else.

I'd love to share Departmental Governance as a way to govern a nation/world. It's not an economic system, just a structural and political alternative no one else has considered as far as I know. Pretty sure all the bases are covered and always searching for potential weaknesses. I believe it to be far superior to anything that's been tried or widely discussed. Just let me know...

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

With the current democratic process, the poor man has way more votes than the wealthy. And since decisions are constitutionally decided by vote.. we have this one hands down.

Thanks for the discussion.

I am taking a break.

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Just one flaw in that... it doesn't work the way we're told. It's a scam to make you think you live in a democracy where your vote has some effect. It doesn't.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Equal wage is by far the best choice .. especially for the majority.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Im thinking others aren't replying because it's a silly question, but let me give you the real correct answer (as I see it).

When the economy is money-based (monetary/price system) you need unequal wages. Period. Political systems, social systems, whatever, have nothing to do with it.

The only way to get equality is by evolving beyond money. The Conglomerate is a promising way to get there.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

The deck is stacked against you.

  • The wealthy do not want to give up their easy- ride.

  • The poor don't trust you.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Yes it's a challenge for sure. Neither of us have an easy path to our desired future. Just a note though, equality will never happen in a money system. We should use the current system against our oppressors, make the best of the situation, and strive to evolve past money ASAP.

All we both really want is equality. It's this system that's keeping us apart.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

It has become a natural response on here to become defensive and attack .

  • Trust no one .
[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Please pardon my interruption...

PS: "It has become a natural response on here to become defensive and attack ." [sic]

Then the twin party and government propagandists have done their job successfully (unfortunately). This is why I post under my name. TPTB surveillance of this site means that "they" already know who we are, thus a screen name merely hides my identity from the people with whom I want to converse. How does this engender trust? By allowing me to create "sock puppets" and "twinkle teams"? To make outrageous and slanderous statements about other posters anonymously? Aye, there's the rub...

[-] 2 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

I'm just tired of the lack of trust, being paranoid and worrying about my reputation if someone I know finds out what I'm doing. I'm most tired of our inability to unite as a people and being indefensible as a people.

I don't think I could gain more trust here using my real name, though I totally understand where you're coming from.

If I stop posting on this site, it will be because I "committed suicide" (as the papers will read), because I don't plan to die or give up any time soon.

BTW, It's most certain TPTB are controlling our behavior in ways we can't realize. When we become defensive and attack, it's brainwashing that causes us to do this. It's part of our training as TPTB's livestock. Reminds me of The Matrix, we just live as a source of energy for the powers we don't even know exist.

[-] 1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

I have a friend that prosecutes qui tam defense contractor fraud cases (not so much these days) -- whistleblowers, the whole nine yards. Believe me, it's not paranoia if they're really out to get you...

What you write is why I advocate voting No Consent rather than candidates in elections. The lesser of two evils is still evil, is it not? You either withdraw your consent or you condone evil. Withdrawing your consent under our social contract, our Constitution, by voting, is the only officially moral act you can commit outside of the jury box.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

You are pardoned.

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Thank you... ;>) I'll shut up now.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

If your plan of Conglomeration is so appealing, why don't you just ask all the current business owners and billionaires to sign up ?

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

The 1% is not invited. Others will be encouraged and pressured to join, but they will have to adhere to the current Constitution. If they don't join, they risk losing their profits to Subsidiaries who have the purchasing power of the 99% supporting them.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

So that's a no?

You'll want to get on board with this sooner than later with that attitude, the Conglomerate could use your enthusiasm! http://groupspaces.com/99Conglomerate/pages/3-phases

Gar Alperovitz: "But I think it is just possible, maybe, if we are serious, and actually want to talk about systemic change, in real terms rather than rhetoric, and actually draw on the traditions of this country and our own imaginations, just possibly we can establish the foundations of the next system, that takes us beyond traditional corporate capitalism, traditional state socialism, and that builds a new vision that ain't like any of the other ones but is really a democratic society..."

Inception-phase planning links

Are you not entertained?!

[-] 0 points by analystwanabe99 (153) 1 year ago

After you watch the 4 video's check this out. http://www.thevenusproject.com/

[-] 0 points by analystwanabe99 (153) 1 year ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAjFBsp__aE

Been down this rabbit hole before. Check it out you have much in common. Let me know you think.>>

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Good video but how does it relate?

The Venus Project link... Good stuff. I referenced it in several posts. You should look for Jacques on YouTube.

That is what I want to see happen. The 99% Conglomerate is how we can get to a state of being able to democratically choose it as a global people.

[-] 1 points by analystwanabe99 (153) 1 year ago

Just sayin . . . don't reinvent the wheel. This guy has been working on this stuff since 1974 and before. If you and all here are serious jump on his bandwagon and take that ride. He is 40 years ahead of you.

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Oh I know, he's great. But what everyone seems to be missing is the way to get there. The Conglomerate is the way. If you support the Venus Project, join the Conglomerate. It's incredibly easy, I can help you.

[-] 1 points by analystwanabe99 (153) 1 year ago

Just the name turns me off. "Conglomerate?" Is that an incongruity?

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

It's useful for conversation and conveying the idea. I believe the Subsidiaries will eventually change the name, I don't care if they do because I'm not attached to names.

We are stuck in this system of corporate capitalism. Really stuck, because it's really the corporations running the show with all of government in their pockets. Electing a different party to fix this is not an option. You can't convince them of anything because their minds are made up, and they have big plans.

So our only option is to make the best of the situation with what we have. What do we have? The freedom to create a corporation with the potential to exceed them in global power and influence.

We have to fight fire with fire and beat them at their own game. Does this make sense?

[-] 1 points by analystwanabe99 (153) 1 year ago

You want to become them??? I would rather take their money away by reducing my consumption and fulfilling my needs at garage sales and estate sales, buying from farmers markets and coops here in the community. Buy only American made stuff. I'm always looking for new ways to reduce my heat and air costs and electricity use overall. Its not the American way but if everyone did it the big boys would be hurting for certain. I'm all for a movement by the poor, unemployed masses that we can start NOW! then work on the bigger plan. Jus sayin . . . Im going to look at your site and see what your doin. . .

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Right, if the 99% start getting on the Directory of Subsidiaries, then all supporters of the movement will be able to look there for local 99% goods/services. It's a smart way to boycott the 1%.

As the Phases progress, 99% Conglomerate advertizing will be more and more aggressive. People will eventually be scanning business logos for the 99% symbol in order to make purchasing decisions.

Thanks for looking at the site, but remember this isn't the official site, just a Phase 1 project task: Creating a list of Subsidiaries for distribution of the Subsidiary Directory. It's experimental but I like it so far... very effective, free and easy.

[-] 1 points by analystwanabe99 (153) 1 year ago

OK Mr Conglomerate . . .I got a subsidy for the 99%ers. Fresh salsa. How do I sell it? How do I get other 99%ers to know about it? Here is your chance. Flesh out your plan. I didn't see much on your site about this or for that matter much of anything. I did follow your latest posting to someone else here. Who's minding the site? Are you spending all your time trying to convince 1 person at a time and no time updating your plan?

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

I had more info on the site but deleted some pages to start over.

http://groupspaces.com/99Conglomerate/join/

Fill in the fields and you're done. More fields will likely come (like description of goods/services) and when they do you'll get notified to come back and fill them out.

You'll receive emails of the Subsidiary Directory fairly regularly.

Yes, mostly just trying to recruit one person at a time while the idea is in development. It makes sense to me for now as I get a feel for what turns people off.

You'll sell more in Phase 2 and 3, as Phase 1 is just getting us started and prepared for the future.

I mind the site. It doesn't require much time and managing members and distributing the Subsidiary Directory takes about 3 minutes.

If you want other people in your community to know about it and join, by all means tell them. But I recommend waiting a bit before going all out on an awareness campaign.

Feel free to use the forum on the Subsidiary Directory site to contribute and criticize. Or here works just as good for now.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

On what grounds should the manager be paid more than anyone else?

In many instances the worker works much harder than the manager (physically)

Would it not be more appropriate if all the profits were divided equally.. amongst manager and worker. Should this not increase work morality.. Equality amongst all people.. with an incentive to be most productive ensures the best working environment.

Keep at it Kavatz.

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

I was hoping you would be the first to respond, but let's wait for others to comment before going at it. Did you look at the Mondragon example?

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

You believe mangers should be paid more than workers.. some people used to feel men should be paid more than women.. and there was a time when race was an issue..

When will Equality be straight across the board. Equal pay for everyone.

Here is a question:

If you employ workers to do a job and they are overloaded by the work required, what should you do ? answer: Hire more workers.

2nd question:

If management is over loaded what should you do? Same answer as above , hire more people to do the job..

Notice in either example the response is not .. Give them more pay .

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Paying people different amounts at different levels in the organization isn't a form of discrimination.

Wages are different because of different skill sets, knowledge and abilities.

People go to school for 10 years, for example, should be paid more than someone hired off the street who's never done more in there life besides push a broom and are unable to multiply 3x3 let alone find the square root of nine.

Differing wages is only an issue when it's like 400 times more.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

It is a huge debate. You know where I stand.

CEO's making 400 times current average salaries, have proved without any doubt, they are not fair and reasonable. Therefore why should I listen to their cries for fairness when I pay them Equal-pay to that of every other employee. If I were to pay them less than equal-pay.. than that would be unfair. which is really more than they deserve after what they have done.

[-] 1 points by Nader (74) 1 year ago

How do you respond to his question about people who require years of education to do a certain job. Why would anyone invest that kind of time and money without a bigger reward? Why not just take the easier route if you are just going to be paid the same?

Or what about completely undesirable jobs like pumping shit out of portable toilets? Those guys make 6 figures sometimes and I doubt they would do it for much less.

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Talk about discrimination! A few CEOs get greedy so you put them all in the same box? What do you think about Mondragon with the top only getting up to 6.5 (not 400) times more than the lowest wage? Is that so horrible?

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Please explain why you believe a CEO's job is more difficult than anyone else's.

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Well that depends on the company of course. There is no way you or I could do what the CEO of my company can. I bet she can accomplish more in a day, EVERY day, than the two of us combined. And she would make fewer mistakes. And no one else can do her job but she can do all of ours. There's one example. Now if you think someone who can't tie their own shoes deserves as much money as she does...

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

I can easily replace your CEO with a hundred employees .. that would do a fine fine days work..

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

I disagree. She's more organized, focused, talented and capable than an army of workers. Finding, training and retaining a hundred individuals to do that job is not close to feasible.

Plus she's not the character you discriminantly categorize her as. She doesn't make nearly enough money to pay for 100 employees and shes not greedy or evil. You're unfortunately blinded by hate and stuck in a fantasy world.

She is not the 1%. She is not your enemy. You have as much right and reason to hate her as the American History X guy has to hate all immigrants after one killed his dad.

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Further to that, our CEO is a visionary and a great communicator. She is a great leader and mentor. You can't get that from 100 new workers.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

So you are willing to pay the CEO 5X the average workers salary.

So let's try a little experiment.

Lett's place five of the workers in the managers office , and the manager out in the factory doing the five workers jobs .. try it for ..two or three weeks ..

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

And we only have 5 workers.

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

I absolutely know we would crash and burn.

[-] -1 points by fanya9 (-2) 1 year ago

What could possibly go wrong with this idea. Please explain this to Tom Hanks, or LeBron James, or Charlie Sheen, or Lady gaga...that they can only be paid 6.5 times more, than their make up artist.

Yet another moronic fucking idea from brain dead communists here.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Hahaha, hey, great contribution. You're brilliant! Fuck em all, we don't need em. And fuck you too.

[-] -1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Surely someone else wants to pitch in their 2 cents. I want to see what the majority of us think.

[-] 0 points by highlander2 (-48) 1 year ago

My 2 cents - equal wages are wrong. Wait, let me think.....yes it is wrong

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

I agree. Considering there are people with such a rare and desirable skillset, so how would government decide which organization they should work for, and would those people even want to work in such a system?