bailout dead

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).

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

And who decides what a "fair" compensation is?

If they decide for CEOs, do they decide for CFOs, CTOs, etc.? Do they decide what the software developers make? Do they decide what the janitor makes? Do they decide what plumbers can charge, as well as what doctors and dentists can charge?

CEOs couldn't make these massive salaries if the stockholders didn't allow it. I don't see how you can get around that.

I said it was a fundamental truth of human nature, and the driving force behind the collective's motivation to work.

You also have a choice to vote with your pocketbook.

If you don't like a particular company, then don't invest. And don't buy their products. Or invest and work on changing the company.

Find a company you do like, and invest.

Form your own company.

I suggest you watch something like Dragon's Den if you don't think CEOs do anything but sit around and collect big paychecks.

I think

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I think

So, you have an opinion. I haven't seen anything to back up your opinion, other than your opinion.

I will agree, some people work just because they enjoy it. But I don't think they are the largest segment of society. How many Mother Theresas do you know?

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

Debra Law wrote:

But your allegation that Congress doesn't have the power to retroactively modify a contract is wholly without merit.

I never once made this allegation Debra. I said that the constitution prohibits passing of laws "impairing the Obligation of Contracts".

Congress has the power to change the Constitution so they clearly have the "power" to do anything we are discussing. I've never argued that they don't.

Please argue against what I say and not what you are able to make up about what I say.

Well, as you've decided to just be a jerk

I admire your idealism... but it has no place in a serious conversation about the economy. You need not believe that "Greed- the desire to better one's own lot in life, above all other concerns - is a virtue": I didn't say it was. I said it was a fundamental truth of human nature, and the driving force behind the collective's motivation to work. If you don't think this is so, tell me, what do you think gets the collective motivated to work?

While some employees are more valuable than others, at every level, this does not translate into an argument for ever-increasing amounts of money being spent on those at the top. I think those CEOs who make a difference today would still be working to make a difference at lower levels of pay, for the compensation is only one aspect of what they get out of the job.

[..]


The drive to innovate and succeed will never die, and having upper boundary limitations upon the financial compensation of entrepreneurs will not stop them from going about their business...

You completely ducked the question. Think on the macro, cyclo... not what motivates some... what motivates the collective to work?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I admire your idealism... but it has no place in a serious conversation about the economy. You need not believe that "Greed- the desire to better one's own lot in life, above all other concerns - is a virtue": I didn't say it was. I said it was a fundamental truth of human nature, and the driving force behind the collective's motivation to work. If you don't think this is so, tell me, what do you think gets the collective motivated to work?

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"...

(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".)

OCCOM BILL wrote:

You completely ducked the question. Think on the macro, cyclo... not what motivates some... what motivates the collective to work?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I admire your idealism... but it has no place in a serious conversation about the economy. You need not believe that "Greed- the desire to better one's own lot in life, above all other concerns - is a virtue": I didn't say it was. I said it was a fundamental truth of human nature, and the driving force behind the collective's motivation to work. If you don't think this is so, tell me, what do you think gets the collective motivated to work?

No such thing as 'the collective.' Each individual has his own motivations for work. If you are trying to say 'the motivation for MOST is greed,' I once again disagree with you. Work is about much more than just earnings.

Cycloptichorn