bailout dead

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Quote:
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.

So what's the mirror benefit if these are so very identical?

Robert, I didnt say there was a mirror benefit.

You told Cyclo, why call for "capitalism for some, socialism for others"? How is that logical, why not just be a socialist then? Well, I said, "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." For example the minimum wage:

nimh wrote:

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 got this also. If you object to the government abridging the market mechanisms of supply and demand and instead setting an artificial level of income by decree - well, that's the same it does with the minimum wage at the bottom end. I dont see what's inherently bad or untenable or even socialist about it. That kind of tinkering is done, by governments, within various models of social market economies.

3 Replies

@nimh,

Occom Bill does not seem to understand that there are countries which are more civilized than we. The French,for example, have a thirty five hour week and six weeks of vacation. We continue to work incredibly longhours. Juliet Schor, Professor of Economics at Harvard, in her book-""The Overworked American" has written that Americans enjoy less leisure today than at any time since the end of World War II.

2 Replies

@ossobuco,

Replying to self, the solving of problems, whatever they are, can be a motivator in a lot of kinds of work, however seemingly dull to anyone else. Eh, even for CEOs.

0 Replies

@nimh,

The same people who would label any caps on the excessive CEO salaries are the same people who deemed Medicare a Socialist program. No politician in his right mind would try to scale down Medicare, which, upon examination, falls short of what is really needed to reform the Health care crisis in our country and no politician in his right mind would object to caps on excessive CEO salaries. One has only to look at the people' outcry on the bailout for the fat cats.

1 Reply

@barackman28,

Not only that, but American productivity continued to increase while the CEOs increased their salaries and benefits over 300-fold, while the productive worker didn't even keep up with inflation. The republicans still believe this is how the world is supposed to work. They now have the audacity to bailout the games-players and gamblers while sticking it to those same workers who's been working their buns off for chicken feed, and living on credit while the wealthy bought more mac-mansions. Some of those same people don't even know how many homes they own, while the struggling middle class tries to keep up with the increasing cost of food and fuel.

Not very many has caught onto the conservative strategy even while living harder lives for the past eight years. Many will still vote for more of the same in November.

2 Replies

@nimh,

And one can tell who is really on the side of the poor and dispossesed when reviewing the last Congressional debate on Minimum Wages. The same Republican Troglodytes insisted that raising the Minimum Wage would hurt business as I am sure they would complain that the caps on CEO compensation would lead to economic stagnation. The plutocras--The Repubulcans are always and always have been against anything that would help the working man, the poor and minorities.

0 Replies

@nimh,

nimh wrote:

Oh, come on. Restricting the pay of the top 0,01% of society to, I dunno, 400 times average wage instead of 600 times does not hamper our "pursuit of happiness". That's just silly.

As long as you dictate the terms for their happiness I guess. So what if you want to target only the top 0.01 percent? That you take their rights away is something everyone should worry about.

Would you support a program to only kill 0.01% of the people? Of course not! And the scarcity of the people you want to deprive of their rights doesn't mean it shouldn't be something that everyone is worried about.

Quote:

I mean, whose pursuit of happiness relies on making 1,000 times average wage rather than just a measly 500 times average wage? Who would be cast into unhappiness when deprived of the possibility to make 25 million a year instead of 15 million? What are we even talking about?

Why would a guy invest in the dreams of others (e.g. angel investor) if you get to cap his monetary return?

Quote:

Yes, I guess there will always be a couple, for whom happiness will forever remain unattainable because they cant earn that 7th or 14th or 21st million $ a year.

And along with them many others who won't get to their first because of this kind of nonsense.

Quote:

So that leaves us with the notion that any hampering by society of any single person's goal, no matter how outlandish the goal or how few people have it, is an attack on all of us, and any of our aspirations.

Exactly. It is an attack on all of our rights. Everyone who's ever bought a lottery ticket aspires to wealth you would deny them. Just because only a few would reach it, doesn't mean that you aren't trying to take away the potential for all of them.

Quote:

Well, count me sceptical. There's rules and regulations hampering lots of individuals' particular preferences in seeking happiness. Target shooting with Uzis for example. Polygamy. When a certain kind of excess is deemed as detrimental to society, it can be and is restricted.

You have done nothing whatsoever to establish that:

a) It is excess
b) It is detrimental to society
and most importantly:
c) That collective punishment is the solution

Quote:

You will obviously disagree about whether the corporate excesses of the last decade count as such a detriment, and that's fine.

No I can be convinced that excess is bad for society, but you haven't even made that case. You would have me believe that anything above X is excess. Well make the case for it then. Are you saying that no human is worth more than X?

Quote:

But it's silly to say that if this particular excess is deemed so and restrictions are put in place, that suddenly constitutes a threat to all of our dreams, rights and pursuits of happiness.

I don't think it's silly. In fact I think you know damn well that your argument is ridiculous and I don't even believe you subscribe to it.

You won't come up with reasons why it should be done, and call it radical, so I'm going to ask you outright:

Do you really advocate compensation caps? I don't believe you are even sure that you do, and I'm getting bored of wasting my time arguing it with you if you aren't even going to try to make the case for it.

Quote:

I mean, you declare that limiting excess CEO pay at some high-up level that used to be the max and has now been surpassed is "the tyranny of the masses" that will "limit all of our dreams".

That's a lie nimh. It was never the "max" you are talking about the previous average. This is the intellectual deceit I'm getting sick of from you.

Quote:

That's just rhetorical overdrive.

On your part.

Quote:

All of our dreams? Seriously, whose dream is it to earn , say, I dunno, 9,000,000 $ a year, instead of "just" 6,000,000 $? Or 20 million instead of just 10 million? How can such a declaration be made about "all of us"?

Because the rights of others should be important to everyone in a civilized society. Just because I'm not in the minority you target doesn't mean I'm not having my fundamental rights eroded because you are eroding theirs.

Quote:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

1 Reply

Is it really a right, to not have a cap on one's potential earnings? I wasn't aware that it was.

Cycloptichorn

3 Replies

@barackman28,

In that case, they're spending their incomes, which helps the economy.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

You obviously do not understand Nimh's perspective. He has lived in countries ( Holland, Hungary) which have far more respect for the rights of the common man than we do. You will find no CEO's in those countries who make 1,000 times more than the common worker. The people would not allow it.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

B) just an argument for trickle-down economics. You're making the same arguments that Republicans have been making forever, stating that giving all the money to the rich folks is a good thing. It is no more valid in terms of business finance than it is in terms of tax finance.

"Trickle down" justifications for tax cuts are stupid, I'll agree.

I'm not making arguments for anything, though; I'm just trying to understand your reasoning. You're the one placing value judgements on how much money people make. It's not my fault that your latest argument for capping CEO salaries made no sense.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Is it really a right, to not have a cap on one's potential earnings? I wasn't aware that it was.

Ah, the argument for why the Bill of Rights was a bad idea: only the rights listed will be granted. Rolling Eyes

Wouldn't you say that limiting income is the same as depriving someone of property?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

First, it would save a considerable amount of money for our corporations....

Ours? I guess nimh might want to rewrite his part about this not being nationalization.

Explain to me how it would save my corporation money (which is certainly not "ours").

Quote:

... who currently are locked into a never-ending spiral of higher and higher compensation for top CEOs and others.

Nonsense, it's not never ending. If it's not real value it's a bubble that will burst.

Quote:

As in many cases, the rate of pay for a job is based upon what OTHERS of a similar stature are getting paid, a situation is created in which there is no negative pressure on the salaries of those at the top.

That's just not true. If someone else can come along and do a better job (inside or outside the company in question) it will put negative pressure on their salaries.

Hell I know a bunch of executives who were fired in the last couple of months because they were expensive. Being overpaid brings inherent negative pressure.

Quote:

If company X, with 1000 employees, pays out a total in salaries, counting all employees and their perks, of 150 million per year and 100 million of that is concentrated amongst the top 40 employees; and that number, on the top end was reduced to 75 million for the top 40 employees; wouldn't that in effect give the company 25 mill more in profits to play with, every year?

Sure, but this is a benefit to them and if they are overvaluing the executives they'll pay for by being less competitive. That's not a societal benefit and is also not a benefit at all if they aren't being overpaid.

Quote:

Second, it would recognize the value of work at all levels, and not just pretend that those at the top are the 'earners.'

Taking away compensation for some doesn't do anything to recognize the contributions of others Cyclo.

There already is incentive to recognizing their contributions in the form of competitive advantage. Companies that don't pay their valuable workers in accord with their value suffer a competitive disadvantage.

Quote:

This is an important social concept and one that I wish to see spread further through my lifetime.

That's nice but your compensation cap doesn't do this.

Quote:

Employees of businesses, at the lower levels, are still important, and recognizing this fact by indexing salaries at the top to those at the bottom would definitely increase the sense of worker happiness and participation in the core goals of the company, even if their salaries are not increased.

So this is all about envy now? This is a good idea to reduce envy? They don't make any more money but this is all a good idea because they'll feel better about others not being that rich? Laughing

Quote:

As to how it would work in practice, who can say?

I posit that it's not viable in practice at all, so I'd love for you to at least give it a try.

Quote:

I have given a few thoughts: that we could index it to other employees in the company.

Ok, then those low paying jobs get cut and outsourced to a foreign service who can pay them what they want. Now we have less jobs in the national economy.

Quote:

That we could allow shareholders to vote upon it. That we could impose federal mandates to either effect.

Ok, so if the founder has 51% of the shares they are all out of luck? That's fine with me because that's how it currently works. The shareholders have votes and can influence the compensation structures.

Quote:

One of the common counter-arguments to this is that, since the rich have access to accountants, they would just 'get around' any sort of limits we want to put on them.

Nonsense, it's not because they have accountants it's because it's just not viable for you to stop two people from agreeing on a private contract if they really want to.

Quote:

That they would simply change what they are doing to accommodate. That they would incorporate abroad in order to avoid taxation. I believe these are false arguments, the idea that regulators will never be able to keep up with the innovation of those who run the companies.

Show us how then. I can work around everything you can come up with to render your regulation completely ineffective unless you are willing to cripple the economy to get there (e.g. shut down transnational trade).

Quote:

We could regulate these activities, and if people threaten to move abroad, let them.

They don't need to move abroad, they just need to move their money. That can be done with a phone call or a click.

How is the capital exodus good for the small guy?

Quote:

It would be better in the long run to do what is right, than to simply accept that we are not able to police activity, and just give in to those who would buck all attempts at regulation.

Well let's start with establishing that what you want to do is "right" before claiming that the ease of circumventing it isn't a problem then.

1 Reply

I'd like to ask the question again:

How do high CEO salaries negatively affect society?

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

What so many do not seem to understand is that we cannot allow scarce resources(The millions that CEO's make) to continue when we have so many people who literally do not know where their next meal is coming from. CEO's
should be mandated, as a condition of employment, to spend one month in the ghetto of any large American city living with the people there. Then they would understand that there is no need for greed in the face of some much poverty and racism!

1 Reply

@barackman28,

barackman28 wrote:

What so many do not seem to understand is that we cannot allow scarce resources(The millions that CEO's make) to continue when we have so many people who literally do not know where their next meal is coming from.

That might be an argument for higher taxes and better social services, but it isn't an argument for capping CEO salaries. Can you say "non sequitur"?

1 Reply

@nimh,

nimh wrote:

Robert, I didnt say there was a mirror benefit.

You said it was the "mirror image". This term means: "A form that is identical to another except that it is reversed, as if viewed in a mirror. "

So what's the corresponding benefit then? It'd be pretty pointless without the benefit no?

Quote:

If you object to the government abridging the market mechanisms of supply and demand and instead setting an artificial level of income by decree ....

We've gone over this already. I already told you I see potential societal benefit in doing so with minimum wage that I'd find acceptable.

Are you trying to make the case that unless I need to argue against every single such case? Why can't I just argue against the stupid ones nimh?

You are trying to fit me into the same ideological extreme that you are accusing me of trying to do. I'm fine with a lot of socialization, what on earth is your point?

Quote:

- well, that's the same it does with the minimum wage at the bottom end. I dont see what's inherently bad or untenable or even socialist about it. That kind of tinkering is done, by governments, within various models of social market economies.

That's nice, but what's the societal benefit for your proposal. I'm not arguing against the societal benefits of minimum wage, I'm arguing against nimh's earnings limits.

You should be arguing about the benefit of maximum wage, not minimum wage because I have not been arguing against minimum wage.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I'm not sure yet that I'm for a cap. I might be for a tie in with productivity/performance. Steve Jobs would be fine and some others not so.
I'm not sure even that should be in some legislation, but in action of some sort by stockholders.

Given that at least some businesses are unable to make positive decisions re their employees and customers/clients because of payouts to executives re pay/retirement - I guess I don't get why the businesses won't implode. Oh, wait...
so that's happening.
What of the stockholders and of their powers?

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Is it really a right, to not have a cap on one's potential earnings? I wasn't aware that it was.

Of course it is. We have the right to pursue happiness (whatever that may be for us) as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others.

I can see cases where excess can do so, but you guys aren't talking about mitigating excess, you are talking about arbitrarily capping everyone's potential (and not everyone's compensation is excessive, regardless of how much it is).

If you want to make the case that their rights are infringing on others by all means do so, but when you do so you'll likely bring up practices that should be targeted directly instead of whole demographics that you want to knock down.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Before I retired I worked for a steel company. One year at contract time the company came to the union and declaried that the company was going broke. They proved to us that what they said was true by showing us thier books. They wanted us to renew our contract for 4 years without an increase in compensation. We, the union members, agreed to this and passed the contract. Shortly after the contract was passed the company increased the compensation of all the top management even though the company lost 10 million dollars that year and the CEO recieved over a million dollars in compensation. They made the union members feel like fools and when the contract came up 4 years later they refused to give the company any kind of break. The company eventually went broke and I have always believed that if management had been fair the company would still be in business. In this company the stockholders had nothing to say about compensation. The board set compensation. The board consisted of people who were on the board of other area companies, the buddy system cyclo was talking about. I think there ought to be a law that states that the stockholders must be allowed to vote on compensation for the top management of all companies. As far as compensation for hourly workers that is what management is supposed to take care of.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know