Public school critics blame "failing" schools on the teachers, but consider what the teachers may have to work with, especially with large classes. Not only are there the cultural issues of not being interested in school, peer pressure not to perform, and homes where books are few or non-existent, but there is also the problem of too much lead in the environment.
"Too much lead can harm developing brains and can mean a lower IQ."
"Lower levels can reduce intelligence, impair hearing and behavior and cause other problems." "Lower levels" meaning lower than those leading to "coma, convulsions, and death".
And higher concentrations of lead are found in older or dilapidated houses. And there are higher concentrations of older or dilapidated houses around "failing" schools.
See "More than half a million young children have lead poisoning under revised standard", Associated Press, 2013-04-04, published in the Washington Post and others.
If CEOs get incentive pay to turn a company around, why not give teachers incentive pay to turn schools around?
Showing posts with label CEOs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CEOs. Show all posts
Friday, April 05, 2013
Friday, February 08, 2013
Across-the-board cuts are always a bad idea
To avoid making decisions, politicians and executives often talk about across-the-board cuts. Not only are the cuts a bad idea because they rarely include politicians' and executives' salaries and perks, but because the cuts often include both the essential and the frivolous.
Let's take a family example. Dad gets a wage cut because the execs decide there should be across-the-board cuts. Now should Dad decide his family should have across-the-board cuts? Is he going to cut the mortgage payment? Is he going to take the bus instead of driving? Probably neither. Is he going to cut the kids' milk budget and his beer budget by the same percentage? If he wants to invest in his kids' futures, he better cut his beer budget a lot and leave their milk budget the same.
Let's take a family example. Dad gets a wage cut because the execs decide there should be across-the-board cuts. Now should Dad decide his family should have across-the-board cuts? Is he going to cut the mortgage payment? Is he going to take the bus instead of driving? Probably neither. Is he going to cut the kids' milk budget and his beer budget by the same percentage? If he wants to invest in his kids' futures, he better cut his beer budget a lot and leave their milk budget the same.
Friday, February 01, 2013
"Makers" are takers and "takers" are makers
The "masters", in Adam Smith's parlance, claim they are the makers, the one's who get things done. Or are they the "takers" who depend upon other people's work but take credit for it?
Adam Smith did write, "It is the stock that is employed for the sake of profit, which puts into motion the greater part of the useful labour of every society. The plans and projects of the employers of stock regulate and direct all the most important operation of labour, and profit is the end proposed by all those plans and projects."
In other words, if someone doesn't invest the capital, lots of things won't be done. Would you be reading this on your computer if there hadn't been the capital to start a company that made a lot of computers?
Smith also wrote, "The annual labour of every nation is the fund which originally supplies it with all the necessaries and conveniences [sic] of life…" and "The liberal reward of labour, therefore, as it is the necessary effect, so it is the natural symptom of increasing national wealth. The scanty maintenance of the labouring poor, on the other hand, is the natural symptom that things are at a stand, and their starving condition, that they are going fast backwards."
If there are no laborers, then there is no one to carry out the "plans and projects of the employers of stock". Michael Dell may have been able to assemble computers in his dorm room, but he needed others to make the parts. As his business grew, he needed others to assemble and ship the computers.
But how many CEOs started the companies that they head? Very few. Most either came up through the ranks of management or were hired from outside. They weren't the ones who put "into motion the greater part of the useful labour". Thus, they are not the ones who make, but are the ones who take the work of others. In fact, they often consider the actual makers as taking from the company and as such are disposable.
How many restaurant chain CEOs are cooking the hamburgers? Where would the CEOs be if there were no hamburger cooks, no cashiers, and no clean-up crew? If their companies have a good year, how much of their bonus are they willing to pass on to the people who made those profits possible?
We have at least one good example of the effects of treating well-paid employees as expenses rather than assets. I saw Circuit City's demise coming when they fired all the high-paid experienced clerks. These clerks made the sales; the executives took the profits of those sales. See "Labor is not a commodity".
Adam Smith did write, "It is the stock that is employed for the sake of profit, which puts into motion the greater part of the useful labour of every society. The plans and projects of the employers of stock regulate and direct all the most important operation of labour, and profit is the end proposed by all those plans and projects."
In other words, if someone doesn't invest the capital, lots of things won't be done. Would you be reading this on your computer if there hadn't been the capital to start a company that made a lot of computers?
Smith also wrote, "The annual labour of every nation is the fund which originally supplies it with all the necessaries and conveniences [sic] of life…" and "The liberal reward of labour, therefore, as it is the necessary effect, so it is the natural symptom of increasing national wealth. The scanty maintenance of the labouring poor, on the other hand, is the natural symptom that things are at a stand, and their starving condition, that they are going fast backwards."
If there are no laborers, then there is no one to carry out the "plans and projects of the employers of stock". Michael Dell may have been able to assemble computers in his dorm room, but he needed others to make the parts. As his business grew, he needed others to assemble and ship the computers.
But how many CEOs started the companies that they head? Very few. Most either came up through the ranks of management or were hired from outside. They weren't the ones who put "into motion the greater part of the useful labour". Thus, they are not the ones who make, but are the ones who take the work of others. In fact, they often consider the actual makers as taking from the company and as such are disposable.
How many restaurant chain CEOs are cooking the hamburgers? Where would the CEOs be if there were no hamburger cooks, no cashiers, and no clean-up crew? If their companies have a good year, how much of their bonus are they willing to pass on to the people who made those profits possible?
We have at least one good example of the effects of treating well-paid employees as expenses rather than assets. I saw Circuit City's demise coming when they fired all the high-paid experienced clerks. These clerks made the sales; the executives took the profits of those sales. See "Labor is not a commodity".
Tuesday, July 05, 2011
High pay to attract CEOs, low pay for judges?
How is it that companies need to pay multi-million dollar salaries to attract CEOs, but we expect to get excellent judges when their pay is frozen? See "With Salary Freeze, More New York Judges Are Leaving the Bench", William Glaberson, New York Times, 2011-07-04.
Many judges are earning one-tenth what they could earn in private practice. Although I don't have much sympathy for the hard times of one earning a six-figure salary, I wonder about the wisdom of keeping pay "low" for judges. There comes a point where the prestige of being a judge is less attractive than a much higher salary in private practice.
I think it is part of the growing myth that all government employees are worthless do-nothings. If that myth goes too far, we really will have a government of worthless do-nothings. You get what you pay for.
Many judges are earning one-tenth what they could earn in private practice. Although I don't have much sympathy for the hard times of one earning a six-figure salary, I wonder about the wisdom of keeping pay "low" for judges. There comes a point where the prestige of being a judge is less attractive than a much higher salary in private practice.
I think it is part of the growing myth that all government employees are worthless do-nothings. If that myth goes too far, we really will have a government of worthless do-nothings. You get what you pay for.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
The difference between "greedy teacher unions" and "greedy CEOs"
Have you ever noticed that those who complain about "greedy teacher unions" rarely complain about CEO salaries and that those who complain about "greedy CEOs" rarely complain about teacher salaries?
Well, the teacher unions negotiate with school boards who have some idea about how much money the school district has. The school board members are elected in often competitive elections and serve only part-time for salaries they wouldn't accept for their real jobs.
On the other hand, CEOs often have a say in who sits on the boards of their companies. The boards are "elected" by the shareholders as a single slate chosen by the board. The board also decides on its pay, and in order to justify its six-figure salaries for showing up for five or six meetings a year, grants the CEO seven- or eight-figure compensation. Some companies even go into debt to maintain this compensation.
About the only way a "greedy teacher" can get a six-figure income for showing up five days a week is having a second job or writing a lot of books.
We used to be able to have very successful companies without six-figure boards and seven-figure executives. Would we be able to have successful companies without teachers?
Well, the teacher unions negotiate with school boards who have some idea about how much money the school district has. The school board members are elected in often competitive elections and serve only part-time for salaries they wouldn't accept for their real jobs.
On the other hand, CEOs often have a say in who sits on the boards of their companies. The boards are "elected" by the shareholders as a single slate chosen by the board. The board also decides on its pay, and in order to justify its six-figure salaries for showing up for five or six meetings a year, grants the CEO seven- or eight-figure compensation. Some companies even go into debt to maintain this compensation.
About the only way a "greedy teacher" can get a six-figure income for showing up five days a week is having a second job or writing a lot of books.
We used to be able to have very successful companies without six-figure boards and seven-figure executives. Would we be able to have successful companies without teachers?
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Why this blog has no comments
I just had my decision to not allow comments reinforced.
Yahoo Finance had an item: Is President Obama anti-business? Or are the CEOs just looking for a scapegoat? Click here to join the discussion on Facebook and then scroll down to the discussion.
I didn't see any entry that discussed the issue based on facts, either way. The entries were sweeping generalizations, innuendo, name calling, and other personal attacks.
Comments might make my blog more popular, but I don't want to spend my time wading through comments, deleting the worst, and responding to others.
Yahoo Finance had an item: Is President Obama anti-business? Or are the CEOs just looking for a scapegoat? Click here to join the discussion on Facebook and then scroll down to the discussion.
I didn't see any entry that discussed the issue based on facts, either way. The entries were sweeping generalizations, innuendo, name calling, and other personal attacks.
Comments might make my blog more popular, but I don't want to spend my time wading through comments, deleting the worst, and responding to others.
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
A tip for Tom Emmer on wait staff pay
Tom Emmer, Republican candidate for Minnesota Governor, wants the minimum wage lowered for service workers who get lots of tips. See "Emmer: Lower wages for tipped workers", Jackie Crosby, Star Tribune, 2010-07-06. He says that the extra wages are taking money from customers. Is he also calling for CEOs with large bonuses to get a lower base pay? After all, these CEOs are also taking money from customers.
His arguments are also weak on other points.
He uses as an example the Eagle Street Grill in downtown St. Paul where "three servers take home over $100,000 a year, including tips."
Do each of the servers take home $100,000 a year or do three servers take home $100,000 a year among them. In the latter case, $33,000 may be a good income for many servers, but many others would like to get that much. If a server receives lots of tips, doesn't that mean they are providing good service to their customers. If they are providing good service to their customers, aren't many of these repeat customers and probably even buying a lot of food and drink. If the customers are buying a lot, the restaurant owners should be very happy to have highly-paid servers.
How many times have you gone into a restaurant where the server has not asked if you want drinks before dinner, has not asked if you want wine with dinner, and has given you a bill without even asking if you want coffee or dessert? Even if the answer will be no, a good server always asks these questions. The server who does will generate more revenue for the restaurant and will get a bigger tip. Oh, but that is taking money from the customers.
If you want to see more realistic figures, see "Tom Emmer goes after food server wages", Rachel Hutton, City Pages, 2010-07-06. She blows lots of the "facts" that Emmer states out of the water. An even better analysis is "Servers, wait staff unlikely to make $100,000", Annie Baxter, Minnesota Public Radio, 2010-07-06, 2010-07-06.
I could go on and on picking apart the arguments of the likes of Tom Emmer, but I'll end with just two.
One was mentioned in Baxter's argument comparing wait staff during slow times to that of sales persons. Many sales persons still get a base pay for getting out there and trying. Do CEOs get a lower base salary when sales are low?
Remember Circuit City. It laid off its highest paid sales staff and went downhill from there. It was the highest paid sales staff that people went to for answers. If they got good answers, they bought. The lower paid staff didn't always have the answers and so fewer people bought stuff from Circuit City. The high-paid servers are generating a lot of sales for their restaurants. Don't knock them!
Other references:
"Circuit City cost cutting madness", Andrew Weir
"How the Mighty Fall", Jim Collins. It is ironic that he mentioned Circuit City in his previous book, "Good to Great". Is there a lesson for Minnesota here?
His arguments are also weak on other points.
He uses as an example the Eagle Street Grill in downtown St. Paul where "three servers take home over $100,000 a year, including tips."
Do each of the servers take home $100,000 a year or do three servers take home $100,000 a year among them. In the latter case, $33,000 may be a good income for many servers, but many others would like to get that much. If a server receives lots of tips, doesn't that mean they are providing good service to their customers. If they are providing good service to their customers, aren't many of these repeat customers and probably even buying a lot of food and drink. If the customers are buying a lot, the restaurant owners should be very happy to have highly-paid servers.
How many times have you gone into a restaurant where the server has not asked if you want drinks before dinner, has not asked if you want wine with dinner, and has given you a bill without even asking if you want coffee or dessert? Even if the answer will be no, a good server always asks these questions. The server who does will generate more revenue for the restaurant and will get a bigger tip. Oh, but that is taking money from the customers.
If you want to see more realistic figures, see "Tom Emmer goes after food server wages", Rachel Hutton, City Pages, 2010-07-06. She blows lots of the "facts" that Emmer states out of the water. An even better analysis is "Servers, wait staff unlikely to make $100,000", Annie Baxter, Minnesota Public Radio, 2010-07-06, 2010-07-06.
I could go on and on picking apart the arguments of the likes of Tom Emmer, but I'll end with just two.
One was mentioned in Baxter's argument comparing wait staff during slow times to that of sales persons. Many sales persons still get a base pay for getting out there and trying. Do CEOs get a lower base salary when sales are low?
Remember Circuit City. It laid off its highest paid sales staff and went downhill from there. It was the highest paid sales staff that people went to for answers. If they got good answers, they bought. The lower paid staff didn't always have the answers and so fewer people bought stuff from Circuit City. The high-paid servers are generating a lot of sales for their restaurants. Don't knock them!
Other references:
"Circuit City cost cutting madness", Andrew Weir
"How the Mighty Fall", Jim Collins. It is ironic that he mentioned Circuit City in his previous book, "Good to Great". Is there a lesson for Minnesota here?
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Which way do Republicans want it?
Several Republicans are calling for more tax cuts in the "stimulus package". On the other hand, they want a strong defense. A strong defense, as currently defined, requires lots of money for all that high-tech, supersonic equipment. And it requires lots of people. Many of these people are doing harder and more dangerous work for pay that is thousands of times less than the CEOs who want tax cuts and other bailouts.
People all across the so-called political spectrum seem to want it both ways, but when it comes to money to pay for things, the Republicans really take the cake. If others are to make a sacrifice in the "war on terrorism", maybe CEOs and large corporations should be paying a larger share in taxes to support it. After all, they have for more to lose financially in a terrorist attack than many others.
People all across the so-called political spectrum seem to want it both ways, but when it comes to money to pay for things, the Republicans really take the cake. If others are to make a sacrifice in the "war on terrorism", maybe CEOs and large corporations should be paying a larger share in taxes to support it. After all, they have for more to lose financially in a terrorist attack than many others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)