Cycloptichorn
 
  5  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 11:53 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

I suppose we could all go back to a 19th-century level of technology.

When are you planting your field, Cyclo? Have you bought your mules yet?


There hasn't yet been an argument invented, that one couldn't Appeal to Extremes, apparently.

Cycloptichorn
OCCOM BILL
 
  4  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 12:02 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
There hasn't yet been an argument invented, that one couldn't Appeal to Extremes, apparently.
What could be more extreme than the silliness you're forwarding? Your supposed concerns over "resources" is the thinnest, most obvious excuse, for class warfare I've seen yet.
cjhsa
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 12:02 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Hello line 1 ?
Line 1: Hi, Im a meth addict, and I'm going to get treatment. When I'm done, I need to get it all paid for because of the bad choices that I made.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 12:07 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
There hasn't yet been an argument invented, that one couldn't Appeal to Extremes, apparently.
What could be more extreme than the silliness you're forwarding? Your supposed concerns over "resources" is the thinnest, most obvious excuse, for class warfare I've seen yet.


Your opinion of my argument aside, DD was still Appealing to Extremes, which is a logical fallacy.

I lump you into the group of 'unbridled ambitioners;' that is to say, those who are more angry at the idea of limits than they are at what the actual limits would entail upon people's lives. It isn't as if limiting executive compensation will prevent any of these people from being rich...

Cycloptichorn
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 12:10 pm
@nimh,
nimh wrote:
If you argue that someone would not continue to work hard if the state takes part of their income away from him, that's an argument that's fundamentally the same as for high taxes, and invalid for the same reasons.


No it just isn't. With high taxes, they can still grow their income. With the compensation limits they can't.

No matter what the taxes are, their efforts can directly translate into more revenue, and there is no limit on what their income is.

Quote:
When you argue that the state does not have the "right to limit the success of others", and has no business "deciding what other people are worth" or determining that "Michael Jordan is not worth his salary", those are broader arguments that, if they were valid, would apply against the government increasing high top tax rates as well.


No it doesn't nimh. Setting high taxes on these individuals simply does nothing at all to dictate the exchange value of their labor. It simply dictates what percentage of the value would be taxed.

Individuals are still free to determine private exchange value with taxation. If, however, you limit the compensation you dictate the actual value itself.

Quote:
Hence using the historical examples of high tax rates as illustration how it doesnt work that way.


In none of your "examples" is what I have been arguing against present, so no, it does nothing at all to illustrate it. None of your examples have capped compensation.

Quote:
You keep switching back and forth from insisting I am transgressing the subject when I mention taxation as alternate example, to using very broad, value-laden arguments yourself about how, basically, the government has no business to intervene in the supply/demand market mechanism of establishing someone's financial worth.


Nonsense nimh. You are the one who hasn't provided a single argument in favor of what you are arguing and who is using wholly unrelated examples of tax policy to defend your argument about compensation limits. I've asked you not to use my arguments against compensation limits for your arguments about the separate subject of taxation because they simply are not the same beast but you are the one who refuses to do so and goes back and forth between compensation limit arguments and tax policy.

Quote:
Moreover, you have injected value-laden concepts like whether someone is worth his salary, whether someone deserves his income. The reasoning basically being that, if the current market pricing for someone's job is x, then x is what he deserves, and capping or overly taxing that is basically taking away from what he's worth.


No nimh. Not taxing, limiting. You are willfully using my arguments against compensation limits to argue tax policy and that's just plain dishonest and if you want to argue your tax policy with me you should let me make arguments against your tax policy. Continuing to use my arguments against compensation caps for the foil to your arguments about tax policy is intellectually deceitful and if you aren't going to do me the courtesy of arguing against what I am talking about then there's no point in my wasting more time on this.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 12:25 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
The ceilings we are talking about are still so high, that the worker can achieve a level of sloth and luxury afterwards not known by 99% of our population.


You haven't named any ceiling so have at it. Don't pretend you have and that I'm disputing the nature of it, you've made no attempt to do so. Try to articulate it then, what is the maximum anyone should be worth.

Give it a shot and I'll play with it, but don't pretend you've done so.

Quote:
It isn't as if we are limiting people to some poorhouse.


I never argued anything of the sort Cyclo.

Quote:
I think it's just the idea of limitation that sticks in your craw; but that's a psychological problem, not a societal problem. I do not agree that all those who seek unlimited ambition will go elsewhere. I think that this is a threat used by the rich to cow the poor into keeping their taxes down, and nothing more Laughing


Make up your mind Cyclo. Are you talking about taxes or are you talking about capping compensation?

You don't get to use arguments for one against arguments for the other. They are not fundamentally the same thing.

Quote:
Really? We're trying to avoid these businesses going bankrupt? I thought the whole point was to get the credit moving again so that loans could be made, etc.


Last night, I even edited this part of my post trying to prevent you from pulling this game. But to no avail.

Yes, we are trying to fix the whole economy, but toward that aim we are trying to preserve their solvency because bankruptcies cause loss of confidence Cyclo.

Quote:
It seems to me that this can be accomplished even if the companies go into bankruptcy;


Well maybe you need to try seeming a little better. It's certainly possible but preventing their bankruptcies has very fundamental reasons that you are ignoring.

Letting them go bankrupt can make it a lot harder to solve the overall crisis because these bankruptcies lower market confidence and if the company is big enough that is a problem in and of itself.

Quote:
and if they are going to be begging for public money, their boards SHOULD be replaced, all of them.


That's fine with me, but I think it's easier said than done.

Quote:

Though you like to assign them no blame, they are to blame.


You know full well that I have not been arguing that they are blameless, just that your ideas on punishment range from counter productive to insane. I have made statements to you about their culpability and you are just plain lying about my position now.

Quote:
They failed their investors and ought to go, and if they are to take public money, they need to go.


That's fine with me, I just don't see it as being as clean and easy to do without punishing a lot more people than them and don't see how that relates to your arguments about regulating everyone's compensation.

Quote:
I made a little mention earlier - about letting shareholders vote on executive pay. Would you be for or against such a policy?


It depends on the specifics. To some degree they already can, but I see potential problems with it and would need to see your specifics. For example, if the shareholders vote that the guy gets X for X years and then change their minds do they get to just rip up his contract? And are you mandating that all companies allow this?

Those specifics are important, along with specifics like whether it applies to publicly traded companies alone or private ones as well.

Without knowing the specifics, it sounds like it could be helpful in some ways and unhelpful in others. I like that it is trying to address performance and accountability instead of just trying to put a arbitrary ceiling on their compensation but would need to see how it would work to have a better opinion on it.

Quote:
This would truly remove the onus of paying executives exorbitant amounts, from investors who don't want to....


Well, how would it work?
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 12:41 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:

It depends on the specifics. To some degree they already can, but I see potential problems with it and would need to see your specifics. For example, if the shareholders vote that the guy gets X for X years and then change their minds do they get to just rip up his contract? And are you mandating that all companies allow this?

Those specifics are important, along with specifics like whether it applies to publicly traded companies alone or private ones as well.

Without knowing the specifics, it sounds like it could be helpful in some ways and unhelpful in others.

Quote:

This would truly remove the onus of paying executives exorbitant amounts, from investors who don't want to....

Well, how would it work?


Okay, good.

Well, let's assume that the shareholders for any given company are, to begin, only allowed to vote on levels of compensation at given times; that is to say, once a year or so.

It's fair to say that compensation should be initiated at the time of hiring, and b/c this will not always match up with the voting periods, it is probably better for the shareholders to set guidelines for the company based on positions rather than address each individual salary. That way staffing changes can be made on the fly.

As for the contractual issues, I have no problem letting the shareholders decide for themselves which is best; having inviolate contracts with golden parachutes, having variable ones with performance-based incentives, or having no real contract whatsoever. The decisions made by the investors would ultimately affect the success of the company, so it's fair to say that they should get to decide. But I see equal levels of success either way; in each case, the investors would be getting what they paid for and would have a full understanding of where their money is going, as well as the option of investing elsewhere if they don't like it.

I'm sure the argument could be made that this is 'unhelpful' in certain ways, but you can make an argument for any position...

When it comes to a public bailout of these companies, however, their old contracts should be invalidated as a condition of accepting the bailout. If this means the company's leadership will choose to fail instead, so be it. It is not our job to bend over backwards to save these companies or the massive salaries of those at the top who, at the end of the day, are responsible for the losses to their shareholders as well as the losses the public will feel over this bailout. I think most Americans would agree with me on this. If the companies fail, we will survive. We have survived much worse, and it's folly to claim that we will not survive this as well.

Quote:


Make up your mind Cyclo. Are you talking about taxes or are you talking about capping compensation?

You don't get to use arguments for one against arguments for the other. They are not fundamentally the same thing.


Let's make them the same. Everything earned over a certain amount could be taxed 100%. Make that amount proportional to the lowest paid employee in your company. Of course, this is just my inner socialist talking....

Cycloptichorn
OCCOM BILL
 
  4  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 12:47 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
There hasn't yet been an argument invented, that one couldn't Appeal to Extremes, apparently.
What could be more extreme than the silliness you're forwarding? Your supposed concerns over "resources" is the thinnest, most obvious excuse, for class warfare I've seen yet.


Your opinion of my argument aside, DD was still Appealing to Extremes, which is a logical fallacy.
True... but packaging your desire to limit compensation as noble attempt to conserve resources is not less ridiculous. Non Sequitur is a logical fallacy too.Wink

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I lump you into the group of 'unbridled ambitioners;' that is to say, those who are more angry at the idea of limits than they are at what the actual limits would entail upon people's lives. It isn't as if limiting executive compensation will prevent any of these people from being rich...
I'm angry at nothing... and at 40 years old I don't think the ideals I'm arguing will ever apply to me personally... so I have no reason to anger. I simply don't think you've done a good job of weighing the Pro's and Con's. Not that Robert hasn't done an excellent job... because he has... so I saw little profit in adding, "Yeah!"

Here's a hypothetical example. We won't even bother with what's fair; let's just look at effect. Someone mentioned as an example CEO’s make an average of 300 times more than their workers... as if this arbitrary fact was bad. Let's say that's 9 million dollars a year and that he employs 1000 people, for easy math, lets say at 30K per year. Now let's cap the CEO at 100 times salary. His 1000 employees would all get about a $5,500 bump in salary... in exchange for crippling the entrepreneur’s ability to expand his business. This could very well be crippling enough to prevent him from creating another 1,000 jobs at $30,000. The net result in this model is 1000 less jobs pumping $30 million more dollars into the economy... just because people didn’t like the CEO keeping the extra 6 he earned. In this hypothetical: People who didn't earn the wealth, who don’t have the skills to do so, chose to take control of it at the point of a gun. But did they really do themselves any favors? I think not.

If you succeeded in capping all the country's brightest, most ambitious entrepreneurs; ultimately you would be doing a grave disservice to the entire country (even if they didn’t simply leave, which many would.) You can take their money with your guns... but you could never harness their creativity nor their productivity, so it is a very bad idea. This has been proven over and over throughout history.
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 12:55 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Quote:
I'm angry at nothing... and at 40 years old I don't think the ideals I'm arguing will ever apply to me personally... so I have no reason to anger. I simply don't think you've done a good job of weighing the Pro's and Con's. Not that Robert hasn't done an excellent job... because he has... so I saw little profit in adding, "Yeah!"

Here's a hypothetical example. We won't even bother with what's fair; let's just look at effect. Someone mentioned as an example CEO’s make an average of 300 times more than their workers... as if this arbitrary fact was bad. Let's say that's 9 million dollars a year and that he employs 1000 people, for easy math, lets say at 30K per year. Now let's cap the CEO at 100 times salary. His 1000 employees would all get about a $5,500 bump in salary... in exchange for crippling the entrepreneur’s ability to expand his business. This could very well be crippling enough to prevent him from creating another 1,000 jobs at $30,000. The net result in this model is 1000 less jobs pumping $30 million more dollars into the economy... just because people didn’t like the CEO keeping the extra 6 he earned. In this hypothetical: People who didn't earn the wealth, who don’t have the skills to do so, chose to take control of it at the point of a gun. But did they really do themselves any favors? I think not.


Um, why don't you do the much easier option of capping the CEO at 3 million, instead of just giving everyone a raise? That would give the business overall MORE money to spend on creating new jobs. All it would limit is the upper end of a few rich executive's ambition. Big whoop.

Quote:
If you succeeded in capping all the country's brightest, most ambitious entrepreneurs; ultimately you would be doing a grave disservice to the entire country (even if they didn’t simply leave, which many would.) You can take their money with your guns... but you could never harness their creativity nor their productivity, so it is a very bad idea. This has been proven over and over throughout history.


Funny, throughout the last century of history here in America, our CEOs and 'best and brightest' paid in many cases much higher levels of taxation than they do now; and you didn't see them leaving in droves.

You are basically extending the Republican argument against taxation, but not really adding anything new to it. Just a bunch of assertions that it would be 'bad.' Not compelling. There are many reasons to stay and do business in an area outside of the total amount of unlimited profit that is available to someone. For example, California; we have very high taxes here in this state. Why do people want to live here, want to have businesses here? Because it's an awesome place to live, even if you can make higher profits in bumfuck Idaho. Under your argument, the high tax rates here would have crippled our business innovation as people fled the area. This is obviously the opposite of what has happened, and it's no coincidence that our highest-tech companies are located here.

Those who choose to work hard and achieve preeminence in our society will do so no matter what the total level available is to them. I have never bought the 'I'll just stop working hard' argument against taxation. It's bullshit. People work hard for many reasons other than just how much money they can make...

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 01:04 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
In more topical news, the Dem progressive caucus is pushing a new bill today, unrelated to the Paulson plan:

Quote:
U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio (OR-04), an outspoken critic of the Bush/Paulson bailout, along with Rep. Kaptur (OH-09), Rep. Scott (VA-03), Rep. Cummings (MD-07), Rep. Doggett (TX-25), Rep. Holt (NJ-12), Rep. Edwards (MD-04) and Rep. Hirono (HI-02), will introduce legislation today to address the failures in the financial markets. DeFazio believes that the Paulson/Bush proposal is based on a flawed premise: if the American taxpayers spend $700 billion to buy Wall Street's toxic assets - a plan pundits are calling "trash for cash" - it will create liquidity in our financial markets and will somehow trickle-down to Main Street.
DeFazio's plan is not in any way based on the Paulson/Bush plan. Instead of throwing taxpayer dollars at the program and crossing our fingers that the plan work, the measure will direct the Administration to take five simple steps, suggested by noted economist and former head of the FDIC, William Isaac, to re-regulate the markets and move America towards a healthy financial future.
The legislation will be available at the press conference.

Who: Rep. DeFazio, Rep. Kaptur (OH-09), Rep. Scott (VA-03), Rep. Cummings (MD-07), Rep. Doggett (TX-25), Rep. Holt (NJ-12), Rep. Edwards (MD-04) and Rep. Hirono (HI-02)
What: Press Conference to introduce legislation to fix financial markets
Where: House Radio and TV Gallery
When: 3 pm TODAY


That ought to be right about now; is anyone seeing anything on this?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 01:07 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Well, let's assume that the shareholders for any given company are, to begin, only allowed to vote on levels of compensation at given times; that is to say, once a year or so.


Ok is this mandatory (as in all companies have to comply)? And do they get to vote for everyone's income in the company?

Quote:
It's fair to say that compensation should be initiated at the time of hiring, and b/c this will not always match up with the voting periods, it is probably better for the shareholders to set guidelines for the company based on positions rather than address each individual salary. That way staffing changes can be made on the fly.


That's all fine with me as long as it's company by laws and not government law. I see potential harm for the companies but as long as it's not dictated to them from government that's fine with me.

An example of how I think it could harm a company and its stockholders is Apple. They were tanking without Steve Jobs and when he came back he did wonders for them. He's clearly worth a lot to the company and if they are not able to acquire him because of their own compensation caps they are hurting themselves and all their shareholders.

And if they can hire him, and they give him a contract, then if he's irresponsible I see an accountability problem anyway.

Now his compensation is pretty much entirely stock-based (except for a dollar a year) so theoretically his performance is directly tied to his compensation. I find that an easier solution to the accountability issue but as long as these are all private contracts I am fine with them.

I am not, however, fine with the government dictating the terms of private contracts so I would not support this as law. I think it's better to make corporate bankruptcy laws stricter, accounting laws stricter, and punish the bad behavior instead of try to get involved in everyone's private contracts because of the bad behavior.

Quote:
As for the contractual issues, I have no problem letting the shareholders decide for themselves which is best; having inviolate contracts with golden parachutes, having variable ones with performance-based incentives, or having no real contract whatsoever.


Well then we have no real qualm here, but it's not any different from what the status quo is either. Shareholders already have mechanisms to do so.

It's not a simple relationship but the relationship between shareholders and the company isn't simple either. There are predatory shareholders as well and a lot of times shareholders have competing interests themselves.

Quote:
I'm sure the argument could be made that this is 'unhelpful' in certain ways, but you can make an argument for any position...


So can you with this blanket argument against any argument. ;-)

What matters is the validity of the arguments, not the ability to construct them.

Quote:
When it comes to a public bailout of these companies, however, their old contracts should be invalidated as a condition of accepting the bailout. If this means the company's leadership will choose to fail instead, so be it. It is not our job to bend over backwards to save these companies or the massive salaries of those at the top who, at the end of the day, are responsible for the losses to their shareholders as well as the losses the public will feel over this bailout.


What the majority feel is just an appeal to popularity Cyclo. It's not a supporting argument.

Now as to your desire to let them fail, that's fine with me except that it would cause a lot of other people who had nothing to do with the company to fail as well.

I'd love for the companies and homeowners who are responsible for this to fail, but I don't want them to take the whole system with them and cause economic problems for all.

Quote:
I think most Americans would agree with me on this. If the companies fail, we will survive. We have survived much worse, and it's folly to claim that we will not survive this as well.


Cyclo you keep making this "we will survive" argument ignoring that we would survive the things you are arguing against as well. As such it's a pointless argument that doesn't differentiate the positions at all.

There are better ways to survive than others, if we are going to survive in both ways then the differentiation is really in how well we'd survive. Are you arguing that just letting them fail would be better than bailing them out?

I don't support that position, and think that as attractive as it is to let them fall on their face and not reward their risky behavior it would be more harmful to all to do so.

Quote:
Let's make them the same. Everything earned over a certain amount could be taxed 100%. Make that amount proportional to the lowest paid employee in your company.


Ok, but now what is the purpose of this. Both nimh and yourself haven't once come up with a reason to do so.

For example, for taxes the most obvious reason would be to generate more tax revenue, and for income capping I suppose it's some form of class concerns.

Now, when you mix them what are you trying to achieve and how does your proposal do so?

Quote:
Of course, this is just my inner socialist talking....


Why don't you just propose socialism? Why do you propose capitalism for some, and socialism for others?

I don't see socialism as a dirty word so I'm not trying to bludgeon you with it. I'm really curious as to why you don't just prefer plain socialism.
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 01:13 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Um, why don't you do the much easier option of capping the CEO at 3 million, instead of just giving everyone a raise?


If it's so simple how come you've not articulated ONE detail of the plan except to make a limit?

For example, if a company makes a contract with me to pay me in stock, and I do a great job and the stock becomes worth more than your limit (which is....?) what happens in practice?

Whose salaries are you limiting? Everyone's? Or just CEOs (they can change their titles so keep that in mind)? What prevents them from moving the company offshore and paying whatever they want while continuing to do business in the US and living in the US? Are you going to prohibit such transnational companies as well?

If it's really this simple then by all means give it a go. You haven't explained either how this would work or what the reason for it is at all.

What reasoning is there for limiting everyone's compensation? And how would it work in practice?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 01:14 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
What is essentially wrong with this bailout is that it only helps one industry while ignoring everything else in our economy.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  3  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 01:14 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
I'm angry at nothing... and at 40 years old I don't think the ideals I'm arguing will ever apply to me personally... so I have no reason to anger. I simply don't think you've done a good job of weighing the Pro's and Con's. Not that Robert hasn't done an excellent job... because he has... so I saw little profit in adding, "Yeah!"

Here's a hypothetical example. We won't even bother with what's fair; let's just look at effect. Someone mentioned as an example CEO’s make an average of 300 times more than their workers... as if this arbitrary fact was bad. Let's say that's 9 million dollars a year and that he employs 1000 people, for easy math, lets say at 30K per year. Now let's cap the CEO at 100 times salary. His 1000 employees would all get about a $5,500 bump in salary... in exchange for crippling the entrepreneur’s ability to expand his business. This could very well be crippling enough to prevent him from creating another 1,000 jobs at $30,000. The net result in this model is 1000 less jobs pumping $30 million more dollars into the economy... just because people didn’t like the CEO keeping the extra 6 he earned. In this hypothetical: People who didn't earn the wealth, who don’t have the skills to do so, chose to take control of it at the point of a gun. But did they really do themselves any favors? I think not.


Um, why don't you do the much easier option of capping the CEO at 3 million, instead of just giving everyone a raise? That would give the business overall MORE money to spend on creating new jobs. All it would limit is the upper end of a few rich executive's ambition. Big whoop.
You can't be that dense. If you cap an ambitious man's salary at a multiple of his employee's salary; it will be in his own best interest to have fewer, but better compensated employees.

I think the problem here is you have too little respect for the entrepreneur’s who earn the money. You don’t realize they really are that much better at what they do than you would be. You seem to think you can pass half-baked ideas off the top of your head and match the performance of a man or woman the market values in 7 figure increments. You can't. And that's why Nationalization never works. People work to better their own lot in life, first and foremost. Regardless of what nonsensical rules bureaucracies saddle them with; this fundamental truth remains.

The United States is the powerhouse that it is; because our system embraces this simple fundamental truth.
hamburger
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 01:28 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
o'bill wrote :

Quote:
If you succeeded in capping all the country's brightest, most ambitious entrepreneurs; ultimately you would be doing a grave disservice to the entire country (even if they didn’t simply leave, which many would.)


do you mean that they would leave the united states ?
not very likely imo .
from what i've read over the years , american executives' salaries top other top executives' salaries in the rest of the world by a fair margin - don't they ?
hbg

and look what secretary paulson stated :

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ay_QVzLE0.VE&refer=home





Quote:
``The American people are angry about executive compensation and rightfully so,'' Paulson, a former chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs Group Inc., told the House panel today, departing from his prepared remarks. ``We must find a way to address this in the legislation, but without undermining the effectiveness of this program.''


almost funny , wouldn't you agree ?
his (former ?) friends must be cringing !
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 01:32 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Quote:


I think the problem here is you have too little respect for the entrepreneur’s who earn the money. You don’t realize they really are that much better at what they do than you would be. You seem to think you can pass half-baked ideas off the top of your head and match the performance of a man or woman the market values in 7 figure increments. You can't. And that's why Nationalization never works. People work to better their own lot in life, first and foremost. Regardless of what nonsensical rules bureaucracies saddle them with; this fundamental truth remains.


You are correct, I do have little respect for those at the top of these corporations. They are just like any other employee. You say that they 'earn the money.' Poppycock. The hard work of EVERYONE in the company earns the money. CEOs and other executives come and go just like all other employees. The business is bigger then they are. Many of them have no special ability whatsoever and got their jobs out of connections; many make stupid decisions that negatively impact thousands, yet walk away with millions. Capping their pay at a multiple of their employees gives recognition to EVERYONE'S efforts in making the company succeed.

I will never agree with you that Greed- the desire to better one's own lot in life, above all other concerns - is a virtue, one that we should be encouraging instead of discouraging. But that seems to be what you are promoting here.

Cycloptichorn
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 01:48 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

I suppose we could all go back to a 19th-century level of technology.

When are you planting your field, Cyclo? Have you bought your mules yet?


There hasn't yet been an argument invented, that one couldn't Appeal to Extremes, apparently.

Cycloptichorn

Appeal to Extremes? Nah, I was just making fun of you. There's a difference....
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 01:49 pm
Here's a great roundup of various economists' positions on the Bailout bill.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/09/bailout_plan_reactions.php

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 01:54 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
You are correct, I do have little respect for those at the top of these corporations. They are just like any other employee. You say that they 'earn the money.' Poppycock. The hard work of EVERYONE in the company earns the money. CEOs and other executives come and go just like all other employees. The business is bigger then they are. Many of them have no special ability whatsoever and got their jobs out of connections; many make stupid decisions that negatively impact thousands, yet walk away with millions. Capping their pay at a multiple of their employees gives recognition to EVERYONE'S efforts in making the company succeed.


Cyclo don't you think you are describing only a particular type of CEO? Some CEOs actually make the difference between the company making money or being bankrupt and those are the ones who are economic drivers.

Sure, the CEOs of these banking companies aren't huge economic drivers but the guys in their garage making the next big thing are. Those guys often end up as CEOs of their own companies.

I've given you a very well known example with Steve Jobs. I hate the prick, but anyone has to admit that he has tremendous value to his companies (Pixar, Apple) and that he drives economic growth.

For example, the iPhone is a development platform that is making millionaires out of everyday developers who have bright ideas. Those bright ideas need a platform to run on, and Steve obsessed about his mobile platform till it became a killer app and created an iPhone marketplace for others to join in.

Sure, some idiot that's getting overpaid for being nothing more than the suit that landed the job is easy to decry, but the compensation limits wouldn't only affect them, and a lot of these companies were founded by people who were much more valuable than they were and whose innovation did, indeed, make jobs.

You can't argue that people like Steve Jobs are not making more for the economy than they are making for themselves, they certainly aren't responsible alone but in cases like that there's a pretty clear way to show that they are worth a lot more than any other CEO they can find.

In Job's case, he was ousted from the company he founded, it tanked for years and he came back and they now have growing pains. It's hard to say that his vision isn't a driving force behind their success and that they'd be able to easily replace him. The guy is a net positive for the economy, even if he's a dick (can't help it, he's a prick of Biblical proportions).
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 01:57 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

Nimh is talking about limiting anyone's compensation.

If you define "anyone" as those now earning millions of dollars at the top-of-the-top levels of income, the corporate CEOs whose financial compensation has hurtled into the stratosphere in the last decade or so, then yes, I mean "anyone"... Confused

(On a probably related note, I kind of resent the demagoguery in which measures to curb the excess escalation of top CEO pay is framed as an action to have "the tyranny of the masses limit all of our dreams".)
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » bailout dead
  3. » Page 10
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 09/20/2021 at 04:37:06