BD recalls are adding up...

Imagine, if you had only kept quiet, the world would have only suspected you were a fool. This thread is like an open flame that burns the moths alive.

Brian L. wrote: Work smarter not harder.

This...

Lots of people work really hard for peanuts...

Mike Brady wrote: You don't know me and you don't know what I have done, yet you want to make generalizations about me.

Aren't you making generalizations about CEO's??? Thank you for the laugh...

Stagg54 wrote: Aren't you making generalizations about CEO's??? Thank you for the laugh...

No. Just trying to let people know that Hobo was stating facts. I'm not worked up about this and this conversation is starting to be a bore. I'm not trying to change anybodies viewpoint as I'm sure we all have many views that are in common.

Some fun facts:

epi.org/publication/ceo-pay…

fortune.com/2015/08/06/high…

forbes.com/sites/kathryndil…

bloomberg.com/news/articles…

edit.aflcio.org/Corporate-W…

Ray Pinpillage wrote:Imagine, if you had only kept quiet, the world would have only suspected you were a fool. This thread is like an open flame that burns the moths alive.

Oh zing!!! You got me there :)

I don't think people are necessarily upset with how much CEO's make, I think where the outrage lies is how CEO salaries have increased so much higher/faster than their workers, the GDP, or even their own corporate profits.

I don't think it's too much to ask to insist that those in positions of corporate power consistently adjust employee pay with the same scrutiny as their own.

Fwiw I'm not saying there doesn't need to be change. But most proposals I've seen have a lot of serious problems with them that the extreme left like to conveniently ignore or pretend don't exist. There a lot of people spewing a lot of blame on basically a scape goat. Sure, your angry, but railing against CEO pay, then saying we need to raise minimum wage isn't the answer.

Actually, I've had an idea I haven't really seen anywhere else. It'd probably be denounced as unamerican by the right, and I don't really know the full economic impact, but if you want to redistribute wealth more preportionally you can't do that with only a minimum wage. You also need a maximum.

My vision would be something like a reasonable minimum wage, and a maximum compensation (not just salary) based on whatever minimum wage the employer pays (with some inclusion for temp labor). In a way this would force a more even distribution of wages, but could result in simply more profit ending up in the company coffers too. There'd be some balancing.

The idea being if you want, or need to pay the CEO a large compensation package, you gotta dish something out to the little guy too.

Mike Brady wrote: No. Just trying to let people know that Hobo was stating facts. I'm not worked up about this and this conversation is starting to be a bore. I'm not trying to change anybodies viewpoint as I'm sure we all have many views that are in common. Some fun facts: epi.org/publication/ceo-pay… fortune.com/2015/08/06/high… forbes.com/sites/kathryndil… bloomberg.com/news/articles… edit.aflcio.org/Corporate-W…

Forbes articles aren't "facts".

Brian - That idea seems really interesting. I know sports team do it as a way to control fairness in terms of availability of the "best" players to all teams. I don't see how it is any less American then setting the bar for how low you can pay someone.

Ray Pinpillage wrote: Forbes articles aren't "facts".

Fair enough. That was merely a small article that pulled it's info for studies that were done by other people.

Brian L. wrote: Actually, I've had an idea I haven't really seen anywhere else. It'd probably be denounced as unamerican by the right, and I don't really know the full economic impact, but if you want to redistribute wealth more preportionally you can't do that with only a minimum wage. You also need a maximum. My vision would be something like a reasonable minimum wage, and a maximum compensation (not just salary) based on whatever minimum wage the employer pays (with some inclusion for temp labor). In a way this would force a more even distribution of wages, but could result in simply more profit ending up in the company coffers too. There'd be some balancing. The idea being if you want, or need to pay the CEO a large compensation package, you gotta dish something out to the little guy too.

I dont think that's a new idea. I've seen it several times. Typically the most common flavor I've seen states that the highest paid employee should not make more than six times the median employee wage for his or her company, called the 6:1 rule apparently. I believe there are some smaller and midsize corporations that do in fact use this rule in determining CEO pay.

Yeah I'm not stating any specifics because I really don't know what would be appropriate, but it definitely sounds like a better idea to me than some random minimum wage increase.

Seems like one thing that's mostly getting lost in this BD recall conversation is that BD is actively trying to reduce the percentage of its sales that come from hard goods (technical climbing and skiing equipment). In the US, BD has a huge share of the climbing and backcountry skiing market tied up, through a history of quality gear and creative marketing. That said, there's just not that much profit to be made in the climbing and skiing business.

Soft goods, on the other hand... Jackets, headlamps, t-shirts, hats, daypacks, and even trekking poles. These items have much wider appeal, and much higher profit margins. I imagine BD will always produce portaledges and carbon fiber ice tools, but the profit margins on these items is probably like 3%, whereas the profit on a headlamp is probably 50-60%.

Shifting administrative attention and priorities away from technical gear and towards everyday clothing has to be held in mind when considering that gear recalls seem to be increasing.

Jake Jones wrote:Most people that don't have money and don't make enough have very real and significant barriers to increasing earning- whether it's the cost of education, time because they have to work one or two jobs, etc.

Wait.... life isn't easy?

No, life isn't easy but from some it is harder.

jnrose5 wrote:Seems like one thing that's mostly getting lost in this BD recall conversation is that BD is actively trying to reduce the percentage of its sales that come from hard goods (technical climbing and skiing equipment). In the US, BD has a huge share of the climbing and backcountry skiing market tied up, through a history of quality gear and creative marketing. That said, there's just not that much profit to be made in the climbing and skiing business. Soft goods, on the other hand... Jackets, headlamps, t-shirts, hats, daypacks, and even trekking poles. These items have much wider appeal, and much higher profit margins. I imagine BD will always produce portaledges and carbon fiber ice tools, but the profit margins on these items is probably like 3%, whereas the profit on a headlamp is probably 50-60%. Shifting administrative attention and priorities away from technical gear and towards everyday clothing has to be held in mind when considering that gear recalls seem to be increasing.

BD views it's climbing equipment business as a central revenue. All SEC reporting mentions climbing products as strategically important. BD is absolutely not trying to reduce climbing gear production. There is more than 3% margin; your assertion is ridiculous.

Ray Pinpillage wrote: BD views it's climbing equipment business as a central revenue. All SEC reporting mentions climbing products as strategically important. BD is absolutely not trying to reduce climbing gear production. There is more than 3% margin; your assertion is ridiculous.

If you read what he said carefully, he didn't say they want to reduce climbing gear production. He said they want to reduce the percentage of their total revenue that is climbing gear- and what that means is sell a lot more clothes and headlamps while maintaining current levels of climbing gear production. They want to grow the company, and they want to grow it into high margin sectors, e.g. soft goods.

Which certainly could be fine- but once the high margin "cash cow" side of the business takes off, it could be easy to get lazy/inattentive with the low margin "core" side of the business (i.e. hardware)

jnrose5 wrote: but the profit margins on these items is probably like 3%,

A carabiner cost less than $1 in material to make and they are not particularly complicated or difficult to manufacturer. The margin is much higher than 3%.

Working in the outdoor retail industry, I can GUARANTEE you that the companies are making much more than a 3% margin.

Also, companies that make skis aren't just in it cause they love to see the smile on a customers face when they walk out of the door with a shiny new set of skis. I won't reveal what company, but our wholesale price on an $800 pair of skis is $450, and depending on the brand, wholesale is lower.

You grossly underestimate production cost when you make blanket claims of 3% margin.. There's not a company in the US that is making a 3% margin, it's not worth the time or effort with such a small profit.

I would be interested to see just how much it does cost to produce a biner. While the process isn't the most complicated process I wouldn't say that it isn't complicated or easy.