Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 02:02 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

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).


The real question is, would Jobs be doing the same work under an environment which restricted his earning potential to a greater degree than the current one? And the answer is not at all clear. He certainly returned to work for potentially less money then he was making before. According to various theories put forth here, he would not have done so.

I think that the inner motivation that drives the successful to be successful is not in fact money. Jobs, for example, wanted an Iphone for himself. That drive is what made the device happen, not the financial incentives that go along with it.

I don't propose outright Socialism, because I do not support it, any more than I support outright Capitalism. The best system - and I think the one in which we will eventually find ourselves - will have strong elements of both cooperation and competition within it. The two are not mutually exclusive, and only those who fall upon the very far end of the spectrum on either side (the truly Greedy and the truly Lazy) claim that they are.

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...

Cycloptichorn
DrewDad
 
  3  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 02:09 pm
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.
OCCOM BILL
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 02:11 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

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
Smile 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?

Your belief that the $6,000,000 man is no different than you or I is a complement to us both... but hardly a serious consideration... and one that makes it nearly impossible to have a rational discussion with you on the subject. Common sense mandates that in general; the hiring of any employee is expected to net the company at least 1 more dollar than they cost, or they wouldn't do it in the first place. You're not thinking it through if you believe any cog could fill the void. And you're definitely paying no attention to the fact that the position wouldn't exist if it were left up to the cogs.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 02:12 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

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 don't think most shareholders have an option of voting on the actual salaries of their boards, let alone other employees. Am I wrong in thinking this?

Cyclolptichorn
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 02:15 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Depends on the company, I think.

I'm sure they could choose to kick the board of directors out and elect an entirely new board.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 02:18 pm
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.
Cycloptichorn
 
  4  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 02:18 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Quote:
I said it was a fundamental truth of human nature, and the driving force behind the collective's motivation to work.


Were you never taught to be wary of those who casually pronounce 'fundamental truths,' Bill?

Work - and what it means to work - is about a lot more than just compensation. It is a necessary component, but only one piece of a larger picture. There are many who put in a lot of hard work and time for little compensation, b/c they believe in what they are doing for various reasons....

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. But, that's just me and my crazy idea that Greed isn't actually the driving force behind everyone.

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 02:21 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

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 do agree with this, and have long encouraged investment in responsible corporations and companies. Unfortunately, pretty much every financial advisor in the country disagrees.

As for the Dragon's Den, well. Let's just say that I don't find Reality TV to be too reflective of Reality in most cases. Smile

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 02:23 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
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?
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 02:25 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

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?


Well, as you've decided to just be a jerk, I'm just going to ignore you for a while. Once again, you resort to Appealing to Extremes in lieu of actual discussion of the topic.

Cycloptichorn
nimh
 
  3  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 02:28 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

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

The idea that if one wants to do any tinkering with the supply and demand market mechanisms of establishing financial rewards, one might as well be a socialist, seems like another appeal to extremes. I mean, wanting to introduce a cap that would merely bring the excess disparities at the very top back to standards of ten or fifteen years ago doesnt exactly equate with wanting to, say, nationalise key industries, does it? Or with wanting to do away, in principle, with income disparity per se?

Lord knows that the debate over how to curb the corporate excesses at the top has raged, over the past few years, across the centre-left and centre-right in Europe. Caps are a radical solution, yes, but they hardly suddenly make for a socialist economy. There's nothing inherently contradictory in favouring a market system to determine prices and incomes, but only up to a point, with restrictions set up at the very fringe outer limits.

Social market economies have long established a variety of ways in which they tinker and restrict certain elements of pure supply and demand mechanisms when it was deemed to have necessary societal benefits - rent controls, for example. Or even just the minimum wage. Considering that the minimum wage also sets an artificial wage for a class of employees, who, left to pure supply and demand, would have earned less, isnt that also a question of what you call "capitalism for some, socialism for others"? It's the mirror image of caps on the stratosphere wages, after all, where you'd set an artificial wage for a class of employees who, left to pure supply and demand, would have earned (even) more.
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 02:29 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:


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".


In your first sentence, you falsely claim you NEVER ONCE made that allegation. Then, in your second sentence immediately following your denial, you make the same allegation that you denied making. How ludicrous is that?

You have REPEATEDLY alleged that Congress doesn't have the power to retroactively modify a contract (concerning executive compensation) because you erroneously think that it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for Congress to pass laws impairing the obligation of contracts. Your allegation is without merit and I have told you so several times.

Robert Gentel wrote:
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.


What the hell are you talking about? Congress doesn't have to change the Constitution to acquire powers that it ALREADY HAS under our Constitution in its current form.

Congress derives its powers from the federal Constitution. Although the federal Constitution prohibits the STATES from passing laws that impair the obligation of contracts, the Constitution does NOT prohibit our federal CONGRESS from passing laws impairing the obligation of contracts. You don't understand that the federal Constitution GRANTS to Congress the power to retroactively modify contracts by and through the bankruptcy clause.

Also, you fail to understand that constitution grants to Congress the power of the federal purse. Thus, Congress may constitutionally place conditions on federal funding. Take or leave it. No one is forcing any CEO to take federal money to bail out his/her failing companies. If the CEO doesn't like the conditions placed on the federal money, the CEO doesn't have to take the federal money. The CEO can allow the company to fail and march his ass into into bankrupcy court. A bankruptcy court will not allow the CEO to walk away with millions of dollars while the company creditors stand there empty-handed.



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


I have addressed all of your statements. I haven't fabricated anything. The problem, however, is that YOU don't have any idea what you're talking about (i.e., the Constitution), therefore YOU don't understand the merits of an informed response when you receive one.


DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 02:31 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Well, as you've decided to just be a jerk

Oh, please.

Apparently asking you to back up your assertions is being a jerk.
OCCOM BILL
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 02:32 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
You completely ducked the question. Think on the macro, cyclo... not what motivates some... what motivates the collective to work?
OCCOM BILL wrote:

Smile 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?
nimh
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 02:34 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

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...

Yep - of course. Seems fairly self-evident common sense to me.

And of course you only need to look at different countries or at America not very long ago to see that equivalent CEO's did work as hard, and did make as much of a difference, despite their levels of pay being, like, only 400 times average wage instead of 800 times.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 02:35 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
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:

Smile 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
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 02:36 pm
@nimh,
nimh wrote:
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


You are being disingenuous nimh. I was responding to an argument to the effect that bad CEOs are different from good CEOs and saying that you aren't making that distinction and were advocating limiting anyone, and not just the "bad" ones.

Quote:
(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".)


I resent your ugly classism and dishonest arguments. The only reason you have a shot at doing this in a democracy is because of the tyranny of the majority. They wouldn't support limiting their own compensation but they might use class differences to target a demographic minority.

All of us aspire to success and if we allow someone to violate the rights of any of us in our pursuit of happiness then we weaken all of our rights.
nimh
 
  3  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 02:37 pm
@DrewDad,
No, being a jerk in how you ask it is being a jerk.
dyslexia
 
  3  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 02:40 pm
at the risk of being accused of spamming (my own topic) I opine that the issue of CEO benefits/perks/parachutes is just talking point fluff. i also notice that the a2k economic experts only one month ago were blaming "speculators" for the then current economic crises. what will it be next month, stock brokers who wear brown shoes over-inflate the price of milk?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  4  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2008 02:42 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

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:

Smile 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
You're fooling no one with your bob and weave. The simple truth is; most people's motivation to work is to better their own lot in life. If this isn't so; please state what the motivation is or admit you can't.

(You're behaving like Foxy again.)
 

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 11
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/15/2021 at 04:58:38