Executive Pay limitation!

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?

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.

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.

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

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...

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.

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

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 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.

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

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.

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.