Executive Pay limitation!

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????

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.

You could very well make an argument that auto union workers are overpaid compared to other similar employees in other industries and companies.

Quote:

You could very well make an argument that auto union workers are overpaid compared to other similar employees in other industries and companies.

You are correct that you could compare the two but the comparison would have what merit given then disparity in cost of living, quality of life, regulatory environment, etc?

Just because you can compare some things things, sometimes there is no legitimacy in doing so.

The classic list.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Cycloptichorn

Please present a logical argument as to why there is no legitimacy in comparing these rates - especially amongst industrialized countries whose cost of living is comparable to ours.

I am stating that comparison is irrelevant.

I can compare my income to the lady who empties my waste basket...but to what end?

Quote:

Please present a logical argument as to why there is no legitimacy in comparing these rates - especially amongst industrialized countries whose cost of living is comparable to ours.

There is no legitimacy in comparing income rates with other countries because of the most obvious fact...we are discussing jobs in the United States and their fair market value to similar jobs within the United Sates.

Frankly, I could care less what someone doing my job in France/UK/Germany is making in income for several reasons:

1) Even if they paid more, I would not be moving overseas to attain that income
2) If they paid less, I would thank my lucky stars for living in this great country.
3) Because I live in this country and intend to stay in this country, the more legitimate comparison would be to the person of the same caliber in the same profession doing the same job who lives in or around my same geographic area....not France/Germany/UK/Australia/Japan/etc

You do realize that in the United States...the difference between executive salaries and the average salaries of employees...is off the goddam board?

Think hard about why this post does not address the request I made you.

Quote:

Think hard about why this post does not address the request I made you.

Each of my posts addressed each and every issue you attempted to bring up.

You may continue to hold out hope that I will somehow come around to some form of thinking that would defy common sense...this will not happen.

So, that means shareholders fire them and hire new talent.

New talent...better talent...talent qualified to turn these companies around would NOT work for a mere $500,000 when they could find better elsewhere with less headache, less stress and NO government intervention.

to sum up my thoughts :
many executives of large corporations had a very narrow field of vision .
they assumed that just by looking at their own business would be enough .
they either didn't have the foresight to constantly scan what's going on in the world and adjust their course accordingly ... ... or they were simply incompetent .

Sit in denial, but common sense is not a logical fallacy.

Oops, maybe it is to some people...and therein lies the basis for our disagreement...

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.

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.


Linkat - You or I could go into any one of the TARP receiving companies and do what the CEO's have done to those companies WITHOUT a week of training. That's what makes their compensation so ridiculous. It isn't earned.