17
   

Executive Pay limitation!

 
 
BigTexN
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 01:16 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Its your contention then that the workers in the company shouldn't have the same type of vested interest in the success of the company as the CEO does?

Are they to be considered a sacred cow in some way?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 01:20 pm
@BigTexN,
BigTexN wrote:

Its your contention then that the workers in the company shouldn't have the same type of vested interest in the success of the company as the CEO does?

Are they to be considered a sacred cow in some way?


I contend that the workers of corporations typically do not enjoy inflated salaries or gigantic bonuses in the fashion of upper management, and what more that their combined salaries are usually dwarfed by that of the management. There exists little evidence that companies are in any sort of peril from paying their non-management employees too much money.

Therefore what you suggest is Appealing to Extremes. It does not adequately address the argument which was presented, but instead tries to make it sound silly by applying the same argument to other terms and people, which does not follow logically.

I can see you getting away with that sort of **** elsewhere, but c'mon. Appealing to Extreme is a long-understood and long-refuted Logical Fallacy and you won't get far on A2K with that level of argumentation.

Cycloptichorn
BigTexN
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 01:24 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
And I contend that upper management does not recieve inflated salaries or gigantic bonuses when compared to other upper management pay packages in the business world.

So, if you intend to whine about anyone who makes more than you, I suggest that you can take that **** elsewhere.

Complaining about extremes is no different than appealing to extremes.
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 01:31 pm
@BigTexN,
In Cyclos socialist world, if you come up with an idea, invest your money, become successful, hire people to help distribute your ideas to market, you must pay the mail room clerk an amount equal to you, the creator of the business.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 01:31 pm
@BigTexN,
BigTexN wrote:

And I contend that upper management does not recieve inflated salaries or gigantic bonuses when compared to other upper management pay packages in the business world.

So, if you intend to whine about anyone who makes more than you, I suggest that you can take that **** elsewhere.

Complaining about extremes is no different than appealing to extremes.


Your contention in the first sentence is fallacious; you're saying that A is not large when compared to A. That's a Tautology, another logical fallacy on your part. Please try harder.

Complaining about Extremes is a right; everyone is allowed to have an opinion and forward an argument. However, Appealing to Extremes is a logical fallacy and is never appropriate.

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 01:32 pm
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:

In Cyclos socialist world, if you come up with an idea, invest your money, become successful, hire people to help distribute your ideas to market, you must pay the mail room clerk an amount equal to you, the creator of the business.


I think the pay should be closer in nature than it is, yes. Why?

Let me ask you: could the company function without the mail room clerk?

Cycloptichorn
BigTexN
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 01:34 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Your contention in the first sentence is fallacious; you're saying that A is not large when compared to A.


There's no fallacy in this! Everyone compares what they make in income to what others in their field/expertise/profession make to determine if A is appropriate when compared to A...its called "Common Sense" as opposed to blind stupidity.

Next...
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 01:37 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Ones pay should be in line with the nature of the job they do and it's overall relevance to the profitability of the firm. Also, the skill set reuiqred would also be a factor in determining value.

Therefore, a mailroom clerk would be at the lower end of the pay scale.

To say a company could not function with out a mail room clerk is a false argument as I can hire from a vast pool to fill the position, maybe even you could qualify.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 01:40 pm
@BigTexN,
BigTexN wrote:

Quote:
Your contention in the first sentence is fallacious; you're saying that A is not large when compared to A.


There's no fallacy in this! Everyone compares what they make in income to what others in their field/expertise/profession make to determine if A is appropriate when compared to A...its called "Common Sense" as opposed to blind stupidity.

Next...


You are incorrect. We are not comparing the pay of these executives to other executives like themselves, but to other employees in their business.

Please try a little harder. You are essentially arguing that executives are not overpaid... when compared to other executives. My argument is that executives are overpaid in almost every company in America; this becomes quickly apparent upon examination of the facts, the history, and comparison between executive pay rates in America and outside of it.

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 01:42 pm
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:

Ones pay should be in line with the nature of the job they do and it's overall relevance to the profitability of the firm. Also, the skill set reuiqred would also be a factor in determining value.

Therefore, a mailroom clerk would be at the lower end of the pay scale.

To say a company could not function with out a mail room clerk is a false argument as I can hire from a vast pool to fill the position, maybe even you could qualify.


And there is a vast pool with which to choose from for all other positions as well. The idea that only a few people can properly do executive jobs is a joke, and one which is backed up by the high-profile failures we've seen lately.

Pay is not a determining factor in performance and high paychecks do not indicate wise performers. And as my original post contends, high paychecks have a deleterious effect when it comes to managing a company.

While I agree with you that there are differences in pay scale that are appropriate, our current situation - where executives make 250-400 times as much as their employees do - is seriously out of whack and has extremely negative effects to both the company in question and society as a whole.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 01:44 pm
@BigTexN,
Certain level employees have little control over how things are run and therefore and can be held to the same expectations as a CEO.

They may have a vested interest, but do not have the same power as an executive.
0 Replies
 
BigTexN
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 01:45 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
We are not comparing the pay of these executives to other executives like themselves, but to other employees in their business.


I had more respect for you when I thought you were trying to make a rational argument.

But to try to state...as you've done above...that it is right to compare a CEOs pay to the mailroom clerk's pay in order to substantiate your argument is idiotic.

And you had the nerve to try to preach to me about logical fallacies...
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 01:47 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
It could function in the sense that it is easier to replace a mailroom clerk than a CEO. You could hire a 16 year and train him in a week.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 01:47 pm
@BigTexN,
BigTexN wrote:

Quote:
We are not comparing the pay of these executives to other executives like themselves, but to other employees in their business.


I had more respect for you when I thought you were trying to make a rational argument.

But to try to state...as you've done above...that it is right to compare a CEOs pay to the mailroom clerk's pay in order to substantiate your argument is idiotic.

And you had the nerve to try to preach to me about logical fallacies...


It is immaterial to me if you wish to disparage my argument; you have provided no counter-argument, which would be interesting. Your post here is not interesting. It seems that you either rely on logical fallacies or ridicule, eschewing actual well-structured argumentation.

I suggest you re-read the thread and catch up to speed, rather than wasting your time attempting to insult someone for which you don't have the capability to do so.

Cycloptichorn
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 01:47 pm
@Woiyo9,
you beat me to it.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 01:49 pm
@BigTexN,
Comparing chief executive wages against average wages of the remainder of the employees...IS THE WAY IT IS DONE WORLDWIDE.

What in hell are you talking about????
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 01:50 pm
@Linkat,
Linkat wrote:

It could function in the sense that it is easier to replace a mailroom clerk than a CEO. You could hire a 16 year and train him in a week.


Sure. But does the Mailroom clerk perform an essential service?

If so, he deserves to be compensated with respect to his position within the organization.

Does this mean CEOs should get paid the same as mail clerks? No.

But it's fallacious to argue that the CEO's contribution is worth hundreds of times as much as other members of his organization. All businesses with mutlitple employees are at heart a team effort. Fair standards of pay differentiation recognize this. Our current system does not recognize this, placing ever-expanding value upon the Executive and ever-lessening value on every other component of the business.

This has lead to many problems and should be addressed. Our current situation is just one example of what happens when the pay of executives reaches the level to which they are willing to take any risk at any time; it directly impacts the lives of the employees and the health of our nation.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
OGIONIK
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 01:51 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

BigTexN wrote:

Its your contention then that the workers in the company shouldn't have the same type of vested interest in the success of the company as the CEO does?

Are they to be considered a sacred cow in some way?


I contend that the workers of corporations typically do not enjoy inflated salaries or gigantic bonuses in the fashion of upper management, and what more that their combined salaries are usually dwarfed by that of the management. There exists little evidence that companies are in any sort of peril from paying their non-management employees too much money.

Therefore what you suggest is Appealing to Extremes. It does not adequately address the argument which was presented, but instead tries to make it sound silly by applying the same argument to other terms and people, which does not follow logically.

I can see you getting away with that sort of **** elsewhere, but c'mon. Appealing to Extreme is a long-understood and long-refuted Logical Fallacy and you won't get far on A2K with that level of argumentation.

Cycloptichorn


ive been trying to memorize logical fallacies, there is just so many!

does anyone have a really gooda link to a website that discusses them simply, or even extensively? simply preferred i dotn like the wikipedia list. just cant get it in that format.
BigTexN
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 01:52 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
My argument is that executives are overpaid in almost every company in America; this becomes quickly apparent upon examination of the facts, the history, and comparison between executive pay rates in America and outside of it.


Continuing on with this...I don't suppose you would dare apply this statement as follows:

"My argument is that auto union workers are overpaid in almost every company in America; this becomes quickly apparent upon examination of the facts, the history, and comparison between auto union worker pay rates in America and outside of it"

No extremes here...just reflecting the core fallacy in your argument.


OGIONIK
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 01:53 pm
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:

In Cyclos socialist world, if you come up with an idea, invest your money, become successful, hire people to help distribute your ideas to market, you must pay the mail room clerk an amount equal to you, the creator of the business.


the companies are using taxpayer money, the government controls their salary now.

your argument is nullified. they failed, no success in that equation.
0 Replies
 
 

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
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/18/2024 at 09:23:34