Wage Inequality Compared to CEOs

Unless someone can actually make an argument of why we should have caps on CEO's salary, then it just sounds like a bunch of crybabies who are mad because it's not them making all that money. I'm not talking about companies that took taxpayer money, I want to know why so many on here think that if someone has a business and is successful and uses there profits to pay higher salaries to their top executives, that that should be controlled. Why should the government or anyone have any say in what a responsible company does with their money? Then, if your really good, I want you to make an argument over why the government should be able to tax as much and as often as they deem fit. Because if a CEO gets 10 million a year it doesn't effect me, but if Obama starts printing more money or pisses more of it away on whatever it is that he needs over a trillion dollars for, then that would affect how much taxes come out of my pay and how much my money is worth.
 
[quote name='jputahraptor']Unless someone can actually make an argument of why we should have caps on CEO's salary, then it just sounds like a bunch of crybabies who are mad because it's not them making all that money.[/quote]
I do veeeeeeeeeeeery well thank you.
I'm not talking about companies that took taxpayer money, I want to know why so many on here think that if someone has a business and is successful and uses there profits to pay higher salaries to their top executives, that that should be controlled. Why should the government or anyone have any say in what a responsible company does with their money?
Click to expand...
Because as soon as they start selling stock to the public, they cease being this super private beast that can do whatever the hell it wants and now have a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders. Not for play play, but an actual legal responsibility. It is responsible to pay one person that much money?

But here's what I don't get. There are many competing modeling formulas being used to model exactly how much a baseball player is worth. They can tell you how much an out is worth, how much a player is worth relative to their contract in terms of production on the field, and project value with increasingly surprising accuracy. And we're talking about a goddamn game. There is more effort put into whether PECOTA or WAR is better for measuring ballplayers than whether Joe "$75 million/yr package" CEO is worth it. Nothing about that makes sense.

Why in the bloody fuck can no corporate board develop something similar for CEOs? It's clearly in their interest right? And clearly they have a legal responsibility to find the best person at the best price. So why do all companies suddenly turned into complete blithering idiots when it's time to value the CEO? They can value your damn smoke break, they can model to the umpth power a tiny change in a financial indicator.

But not CEO pay.

Why? Maybe cause it's rigged. Maybe because a bunch of drooling business majors are praying that they can ride the gravy train and don't want it to end until they get their shot. Maybe because like politicians, they have zero incentive to stop it and every reason to encourage it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's not jealousy, I do ok for myself and never cared about getting rich and have little respect for people who's main focus in life is to make as much as possible.

It's about caring about seeing executive salaries go through the roof over the past 50 years while workers doing the actual work for the company haven't seen anywhere near the same percent increases in their salaries over the same time frame. It's about seeing executives keep getting huge salaries while their companies are losing money and workers are being laid off. It's about all the problems that arise in a society from too great of wage inequality.

Government taxes are needed for essential services (defense, education, infrastructure etc.) and are as high as they are do to the problems above that necessity income redistribution to have a decent society where people aren't starving to death, or dying from not having a job or enough money for medical care etc. etc. etc.

There's no problems with big salaries if the company is doing well and workers are suffering while executives are getting million dollar bonuses. Tie salaries to a max % of company profits, include reductions for each layoff in the company etc. to give incentive to keep the company in the red and workers in jobs.
 
[quote name='jputahraptor']Unless someone can actually make an argument of why we should have caps on CEO's salary[/quote]

There are a few arguments it is just that A) They are most certainly beyond you and B) You aren't worth the time.

then it just sounds like a bunch of crybabies who are mad because it's not them making all that money.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what it doesn't sound like.

----------

Jim Sinegal is perfectly happy with a salary of 350k (he does pull in a few mil. extra with stock options etc.) but even with bonuses he pulls in less than CEOs at other corporations who manage much smaller operations. An American CEO can routinely make multiple times what their European counterparts make even those running a correspondingly larger company.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For a private corporation, they can pay their CEO's whatever they want as ridiculous as it may be. However, for any company that requires federal bailouts, the government has every right to limit executive compensation.
 
See, people get angry about big rich CEOs being slapped on the wrist because they have this absurd idea that they, too, one day might be a big pants wearing moneyman. So they see it as an attack on themselves. Then they add in slippery slope arguments and start saying WHAT IF THE GUBMENT TRIED TO TAKE MY GUMMY BEARS AWAY, because that's the height of intellectual argument you'll get.

Nevermind the tax haven bank accounts, the backroom deals, the underhanded dealings, the back scratching circle jerks, paying off Republican legistators to fight for their right to partay, etc etc etc. Don't even think about it - it's irrelevant, isn't it? The insurmountable odds and mountains?

Instead of seeing it as a fixed game where a handful of people are jealously guarding their hoarding and shutting out any chance of people moving up in the corporate structure, the dumbshit GOP has scared them with their nonsense.

It's not a fair game. It hasn't been for a minimum of thirty years now. And even with the gigantic failure of our economy right now, there's still this chest beating that OMFG CAPITALIZM>>>>>>>>ANYTHING-NOT-CAPITRILAIMZM.

It's just been proven - in the last year - that if you manage a few million chipmunks, you're allowed to totally rub your dick all day and let the government pay you to do so. Literally millions of lives in the balance at the pure mercy of a tiny handful of people, none of whom give a shit about you or your livelihood, and are going to sell your ass down the river to get another boat. That's no longer a free market. Nor is it when a company merges with another company to help solidify their position to help further destroy competition.

But no. System isn't broken. Carry on, because the angry cunts at town hall meetings with sixth grade educations somehow think that they too, one day, will smoke cigars next to champagne filled pools while naked cheerleaders shoot Uzis wildly into the air.
 
[quote name='Strell']But no. System isn't broken. Carry on, because the angry cunts at town hall meetings with sixth grade educations somehow think that they too, one day, will smoke cigars next to champagne filled pools while naked cheerleaders shoot Uzis wildly into the air.[/QUOTE]

I don't know that these people lust after the rich, I think it's more that they don't realize how much they've been robbed.

There are going to be alot of rude surprises for the poor idiots who vote Republican when they turn 60. They'll suddenly find out social security is defunct, the company decided to rip up their pension and the policians writing the law left them no recourse, scamster CEOs devalued half the worth of their mutual funds, and their health insurance company is drastically raising the rates of their health plan that doesn't fund the recomended cure for their cancer anyway. Better pick up some Dr.Scholls so you don't get bunions welcoming people to Walmart 35 hours a week.
 
[quote name='camoor']I don't know that these people lust after the rich, I think it's more that they don't realize how much they've been robbed.
[/QUOTE]

It probably is more the latter than the former.

I just think that's what the whole Joe the Dipshit angle was about. That if he got the money to buy a company from someone else (which he didn't have, which probably was the fault of SPENDOCRATS! somehow), and then if he learned how to be a plumber (which he wasn't), and that if he was a brilliant businessman (which he wasn't), and that if his company managed to turn a profit within five years (which it wouldn't), and that if he then started to make over 250K, he'd be so anally reamed from Obama Crew that his ascension into the fastlane would be halted by super taxes that fundamentally destroy the American Dream.

Which is to say, the whole argument worked on the end result, and all the intermediate hypotheticals were swiftly (and stupidly) removed and ignored, because why focus on how to get through the journey when we're only interested with the destination? Throw away all the ifs - Obama already killed the golden goose.

Instead of examining the pure fallacy of the entire premise to begin with, the Republicans jumped straight into "black man gonna take yer money and jorbs!" without admitting that the game is pretty much fixed no matter what because the ones at the top right now already have a stranglehold on everything.

This is my understanding, anyway. Everyone just focuses on what could maybe happen in terms of only the results only versus the arduous journey to begin with, and would rather cry wolf on something that's ten years down the line rather than thinking they'll never get there at all.
 
[quote name='Strell']It probably is more the latter than the former.

I just think that's what the whole Joe the Dipshit angle was about. That if he got the money to buy a company from someone else (which he didn't have, which probably was the fault of SPENDOCRATS! somehow), and then if he learned how to be a plumber (which he wasn't), and that if he was a brilliant businessman (which he wasn't), and that if his company managed to turn a profit within five years (which it wouldn't), and that if he then started to make over 250K, he'd be so anally reamed from Obama Crew that his ascension into the fastlane would be halted by super taxes that fundamentally destroy the American Dream.

Which is to say, the whole argument worked on the end result, and all the intermediate hypotheticals were swiftly (and stupidly) removed and ignored, because why focus on how to get through the journey when we're only interested with the destination? Throw away all the ifs - Obama already killed the golden goose.

Instead of examining the pure fallacy of the entire premise to begin with, the Republicans jumped straight into "black man gonna take yer money and jorbs!" without admitting that the game is pretty much fixed no matter what because the ones at the top right now already have a stranglehold on everything.

This is my understanding, anyway. Everyone just focuses on what could maybe happen in terms of only the results only versus the arduous journey to begin with, and would rather cry wolf on something that's ten years down the line rather than thinking they'll never get there at all.[/QUOTE]

It is a bit hard to articulate but yeah, half the battle is deprogramming. The other half is explaining basic things like the different between net/gross income and what a marginal tax rate is.
 
[quote name='Strell']It probably is more the latter than the former.

I just think that's what the whole Joe the Dipshit angle was about. That if he got the money to buy a company from someone else (which he didn't have, which probably was the fault of SPENDOCRATS! somehow), and then if he learned how to be a plumber (which he wasn't), and that if he was a brilliant businessman (which he wasn't), and that if his company managed to turn a profit within five years (which it wouldn't), and that if he then started to make over 250K, he'd be so anally reamed from Obama Crew that his ascension into the fastlane would be halted by super taxes that fundamentally destroy the American Dream.

Which is to say, the whole argument worked on the end result, and all the intermediate hypotheticals were swiftly (and stupidly) removed and ignored, because why focus on how to get through the journey when we're only interested with the destination? Throw away all the ifs - Obama already killed the golden goose.

Instead of examining the pure fallacy of the entire premise to begin with, the Republicans jumped straight into "black man gonna take yer money and jorbs!" without admitting that the game is pretty much fixed no matter what because the ones at the top right now already have a stranglehold on everything.

This is my understanding, anyway. Everyone just focuses on what could maybe happen in terms of only the results only versus the arduous journey to begin with, and would rather cry wolf on something that's ten years down the line rather than thinking they'll never get there at all.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Msut77']It is a bit hard to articulate but yeah, half the battle is deprogramming. The other half is explaining basic things like the different between net/gross income and what a marginal tax rate is.[/QUOTE]

The way you guys talk - it's as if you think there is a sizable portion of America susceptible to get-rich quick schemes. Now if you'll excuse me I want to polish off a few chapters of Kevin Trudeau's latest book "Weath secrets 'they' don't want you to know" before hitting up Trump's latest financing seminar.
 
Instead of paying CEOs big dick money, the profits should either be shared among all the workers or put into a big ginormous slush fund so when shit hits the fan like it did last year and is still kind of doing now, the companies won't be in serious trouble and have to lay off people.

Or perhaps a little bit of both would work.

The slush fund idea is something that should be implemented on the company level. Build up those cash reserves. We all (should) do it on the individual level for unexpected bills and such. No reason companies shouldn't do it. That way companies can pay their bills (paying their employees) instead of laying them off and making the entire country a huge mess.

In fact, I think that a government mandate companies need to build up their cash reserves would be an excellent idea. It would cut down on CEO pay across the board while ensuring the welfare of the economy.

Then again, it would probably drive dickass CEOs to pay everybody else less while holding onto as much of their heavily inflated salaries as they can like the whiny little fuckcunts they are.
 
[quote name='Chuplayer']Instead of paying CEOs big dick money, the profits should either be shared among all the workers or put into a big ginormous slush fund so when shit hits the fan like it did last year and is still kind of doing now, the companies won't be in serious trouble and have to lay off people.

Or perhaps a little bit of both would work.

The slush fund idea is something that should be implemented on the company level. Build up those cash reserves. We all (should) do it on the individual level for unexpected bills and such. No reason companies shouldn't do it. That way companies can pay their bills (paying their employees) instead of laying them off and making the entire country a huge mess.

In fact, I think that a government mandate companies need to build up their cash reserves would be an excellent idea. It would cut down on CEO pay across the board while ensuring the welfare of the economy.

Then again, it would probably drive dickass CEOs to pay everybody else less while holding onto as much of their heavily inflated salaries as they can like the whiny little fuckcunts they are.[/QUOTE]
I just realized now that not even the government can keep cash reserves, so good luck making companies do it. Such failures.
 
[quote name='Chuplayer']I just realized now that not even the government can keep cash reserves, so good luck making companies do it. Such failures.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, once you accept money as a concept instead of a material reality, the present day world makes alot of sense.

In this light, the movies of my youth are fairly humorous. So much for subconscious indoctrination.

Follow the Yellow Brick Road. Follow the Yellow Brick Road.
Follow, follow, follow, follow,
Follow the Yellow Brick Road.
Follow the Yellow Brick, Follow the Yellow Brick,
Follow the Yellow Brick Road.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='Strell']See, people get angry about big rich CEOs being slapped on the wrist because they have this absurd idea that they, too, one day might be a big pants wearing moneyman. So they see it as an attack on themselves. Then they add in slippery slope arguments and start saying WHAT IF THE GUBMENT TRIED TO TAKE MY GUMMY BEARS AWAY, because that's the height of intellectual argument you'll get.

Nevermind the tax haven bank accounts, the backroom deals, the underhanded dealings, the back scratching circle jerks, paying off Republican legistators to fight for their right to partay, etc etc etc. Don't even think about it - it's irrelevant, isn't it? The insurmountable odds and mountains?

Instead of seeing it as a fixed game where a handful of people are jealously guarding their hoarding and shutting out any chance of people moving up in the corporate structure, the dumbshit GOP has scared them with their nonsense.

It's not a fair game. It hasn't been for a minimum of thirty years now. And even with the gigantic failure of our economy right now, there's still this chest beating that OMFG CAPITALIZM>>>>>>>>ANYTHING-NOT-CAPITRILAIMZM.

It's just been proven - in the last year - that if you manage a few million chipmunks, you're allowed to totally rub your dick all day and let the government pay you to do so. Literally millions of lives in the balance at the pure mercy of a tiny handful of people, none of whom give a shit about you or your livelihood, and are going to sell your ass down the river to get another boat. That's no longer a free market. Nor is it when a company merges with another company to help solidify their position to help further destroy competition.

But no. System isn't broken. Carry on, because the angry cunts at town hall meetings with sixth grade educations somehow think that they too, one day, will smoke cigars next to champagne filled pools while naked cheerleaders shoot Uzis wildly into the air.[/QUOTE]

Everything you said about CEO's can be applied word for word to the government. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and all the other liberals knows exactly what's best for us whether we like it or not, no matter how unpopular it is. It will go through kicking and screaming while they continue to spend taxpayer money on whatever they see fit with no repercussions to how it will affect the value of our currency and the national debt. For every point you can make about a CEO, I see it magnified 20X in government waste. What you, or someone else said (to lazy to look) said about stocks and how people who invest get burned by poor decisons of the company seems small when looked at what all of us who pay taxes see done to our money. I see your slight bias in your post regarding GOP and Republicans and you can't realistically argue that the same thing isn't happening, no liberals take money for favors? I may call myself a Republican (shocker!) but a large wasteful government is never a good thing no matter which party is in control.

Also I should point out that most CEO's do a good job of keeping there company profitable and staying ahead of the curve. A lot of large and small American corporations do it right, but the media only reports on the bad ones. I wish I could say the success rate was as high with state and national government, but all I see is most every state billions in debt, not enough being spent on infrastructure, and to little being done with the trillion dollars Obama used to stimulate the economy. I think by now we have seen that both Bush and Obama failed, or are failing the best interests of the American people and truly making good decisions for all of us. If the government were a business, there is no doubt that they would have gone bankrupt long ago. They just have an unlimited bank account (taxpayers).
 
If I ask you to start using examples instead of rhetoric, would that make you start using examples instead of rhetoric, or simply leave the thread?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']If I ask you to start using examples instead of rhetoric, would that make you start using examples instead of rhetoric, or simply leave the thread?[/QUOTE]

You really need examples of government waste? Really? I shouldn't even reply to this post and justify it, let alone take it seriously but here you go buddy. Maybe you'll see these links below and realize the truth about government and the billions wasted each year on pork, special interests, and lobbying that is not in the best interest of the American taxpayers money, those that elect these officials in the first place. I wonder if you see these links if you'll realize what you are and disappear like Bruce in The Sixth Sense.

First a foreward by Milton Friedman http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un4-eI1T71E

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aY0tX8UysIaM

http://funding-programs.idilogic.aidpage.com/funding-programs/

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm839-list.cfm

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm2642.cfm

Now give me a list of this administrations accomplisments :)
 
Nonono. Not government waste. Jesus, no. Defend the idea that CEOs deserve their income, that they get bonuses only when their companies are profitable, and defend the idea that only CEOs deserve those bonuses - that you'll do irreparable harm to the companies if you pay those tens of millions in bonuses and wages to other employees.

Government waste is about 5% of what your overall messy thesis is. Focus on the 95% part.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Nonono. Not government waste. Jesus, no. Defend the idea that CEOs deserve their income, that they get bonuses only when their companies are profitable, and defend the idea that only CEOs deserve those bonuses - that you'll do irreparable harm to the companies if you pay those tens of millions in bonuses and wages to other employees.

Government waste is about 5% of what your overall messy thesis is. Focus on the 95% part.[/QUOTE]

Yes let's ignore the billions wasted every year by the government. Of course, that's all 5% of the problem. You seem to be in denial or naive to the real problem. If the gov was actually responsible with the money they didn't earn, then we wouldn't be taxed more than a quarter of our income every year. Look over those links, all that money is money that you and I earned. It's given to the government and most of it is wasted, look at our national debt, that's not the fault of somebody who owns a successful company in Utah, it's a politician who has a budget that's more than he or she needs and doesn't go nearly as far as it would. Hense all these tea parties, people are waking up to the amount of wasteful spending. If a CEO wastes money, it only effects his company and some stock holders. When Obama borrows trillions of dollars that don't even create jobs, and cause inflation, that effects everyone.

Let's just talk about companies that didn't take taxpayer dollars, because we are in agreement over the ones that do. The last sentence of your first paragraph above sounds like a Freduian slip by you, take money out of the CEO's and give to the employees, sounds like income redistrubution doesn't it? While it's a nice idea, a company can't just give it's profits back to the employees if it plans to reinvest that money and continue to be profitable. The money that is given to the CEO, that's the companies decision, and if they can afford to pay them that money, then it shows they can manage their money and they are successful enough to pay those salaries. Is it fair to the little guys who do more, of course not, but you know what, those people worked up to that position and if that's what awaits those who get there, then good for them. Why not attack lottery winners then? If one person wins 200 million, well that could be 1 million to 200 happy people. So tell me why nobody is arguing for that?
 
Your tautalogical thinking has my head spinning. You defend CEO pay based on the foolish notion that CEOs earn bonus pay when they perform their job well, when the reality is that CEOs earn bonus pay period. You also deny non-CEO employees the same privileges of hard work, productivity, and profitability by calling giving them living wages "wealth redistribution." You justify widespread economic inequality by deeming the hard work of a small portion of the population to be deserving of extra remuneration, then in the same breath decry doing the same thing to other individuals abhorrent and unethical.

And "wealth redistribution" is a red herring argument. Any allotment of funds earned by a business is redistribution. Any spending of money is redistribution. The power leveraged by companies to suppress wages, suppress hours, and layoff staff without bothering to lower the wages of executives at *all*, let alone simply commensurate with the rest of the staff, is wealth redistribution. So stop saying that word, because I don't think you fully grasp what your red-state dipshit blogs are trying to argue, and you certainly don't grasp how silly of an argument it is.
 
Big difference myke..businesses create wealth, therefore they have the right to redistribute THEIR wealth according to THEIR preferences. Any time you bring a coercive government (who creates nothing) into the equation, you are talking about forcibly confiscating the property of others. One practice is moral and just..one is profoundly immoral and unjust.

Hint: Pointing a gun at someone's head and controlling their life/property is the immoral option.

CEO pay is determined by those who own the company. Only those paying his salary have the right to be concerned. If you have a problem with a particular CEO making a lot of money, buy a share of stock and cast your vote for board members or ballot initiatives that seek to reduce his pay. Otherwise, STFU and stop asking your favorite politicians to bring guns into the equation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Big difference myke..businesses create wealth, therefore they have the right to redistribute THEIR wealth according to THEIR preferences. Any time you bring a coercive government (who creates nothing) into the equation, you are talking about forcibly confiscating the property of others. One practice is moral and just..one is profoundly immoral and unjust.

Hint: Pointing a gun at someone's head and controlling their life/property is the immoral option. CEO pay is determined by those who own the company. Only those paying his salary have the right to be concerned. If you have a problem with a particular CEO making a lot of money, buy a share of stock and cast your vote for board members or ballot initiatives that seek to reduce his pay. Otherwise, STFU and stop asking your favorite politicians to bring guns into the equation.
 
Nah, I'd rather get the government out entirely. Get rid of a unified currency because that just holds a gun to the head of corporations and restricts their freedom to remunerate employees the way they want to.

You want laissez faire? Get the government out of business and go back to the truck system. Hope you enjoy spending your monopoly money at the company store - whatever Wal-Mart Bucks you have left over from paying them your rent, insurance, and car payment.

Y'all who want to eliminate the minimum wage are a bunch of goddamned freedom-hating communist lesbian liberal pantywaists. Get rid of the dollar, too, and bring freedom back to the market!
 
If you think a CEO of a company makes too much money in relation to you, then you don't have to lend your skills to that company. Go to a company more in line with your beliefs.

If you disagree with what your gov does with your money, your options are literally complain and pay anyway or don't pay and go to prison.
 
You love rolling off on tangents don't you myke? ;)

[quote name='mykevermin']
Y'all who want to keep the minimum wage are a bunch of goddamned freedom-hating communist lesbian liberal pantywaists. Get rid of the dollar, too, and bring freedom back to the market![/QUOTE]

Had to fix one word in that paragraph..but otherwise :applause:
 
I love tangents as much as you love dancing around circles of rhetoric that are baseless in reality.

[quote name='thrustbucket']If you think a CEO of a company makes too much money in relation to you, then you don't have to lend your skills to that company. Go to a company more in line with your beliefs.[/QUOTE]

Come move to my town. You can work for Kroger, Wal-Mart, or the university. There's nothing else out here. Let's see how committed you are to the idea that individual workers have as much power in the market as the wealthy then.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Come move to my town. You can work for Kroger, Wal-Mart, or the university. There's nothing else out here. Let's see how committed you are to the idea that individual workers have as much power in the market as the wealthy then.[/QUOTE]

And your solution is..what? Someone posted a link in the other thread about the average wage for Wal-Mart associates last year being[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica]$10.68/hr. That is $4 above minimum wage and a damn good salary for a grocery bagger even if he's been on the job 20 years. You can't expect Wal-Mart to pay cashiers and stock boys $50k a year when they are so easily replaceable. If someone wants a better wage, they need to educate themselves and gain other skills to move forward in life. It is not the responsibility of Wal-Mart or Mcdonalds to do this for their workers.
[/FONT]
 
No. The solution is to trickle profits down to the people that actually work their ass off to make them. The guy that goes out of his way to make sure customers are happy and taken care of. Hook him up with a 10K Christmas bonus and watch him continue to bust his ass for the rest of his life. You'll also see the other employees bust their ass so they can get that bonus next year.

Instead, corporations somehow think it's a good idea to give one person a multi-million dollar bonus to ensure profits stay high. How does that make sense?
 
Well considering that a business exists to make profit, it makes perfect sense. I also don't think the Reagan approach is the answer either.
 
Instead, corporations somehow think it's a good idea to give one person a multi-million dollar bonus to ensure profits stay high. How does that make sense?
Click to expand...
Because pascal..the lowliest janitor does not contribute something to the company worth a $10,000 Christmas bonus.. Physical effort is not what creates and sustains a multi billion dollar corporation. Ideas and mental effort are what created the business model that enables all of the "simple" jobs to be created. The benefit received by a grocery bagger earning $10/hr is immense in proportion to the amount of mental effort that goes into his job. He contributes nothing to those above him..whereas a CEO who comes up with a way to optimize the supply chain might save his company billions of dollars..enabling them to grow and expand across the globe and create hundreds of new grocery stores in the process.

An inventor who comes up with a revolutionary piece of software might spawn an entire industry and create technology boom that benefits millions. The wealth Bill Gates has earned is immense in comparison to the physical labor required to invent his products..but it is a tiny fraction compared to the wealth he created for others with the gift of his ideas and MENTAL effort. Think of the inventors of modern computer technology...They have contributed enormously to the welfare of society and we have all received the incomparable bonus of their brains while they receive nothing but a material benefit in return. This is because in general the market rewards IDEAS more than anything else. Ideas that enhance productivity and improve the quality of life are the most highly rewarded. Those whose jobs require menial labor and rote memorization contribute nothing to those above them. They add no new ideas to the pool of human knowledge..and are therefore the least rewarded financially.

Is the system perfect? No. Do some CEOs get paid ridiculous wages in proportion to their contribution? Yes. But that is only a poor reflection on the companies in question, not the market itself. The free market is based on exchanging value for value, and any company that continues paying excessive salaries without gaining a value in return is acting irrationally. They might get away with it temporarily, but the market always punishes irrational behavior in the long run.
 
First of all, I never said you had to give the janitor 10K. That being said, if a janitor is going above and beyond, what's the harm in giving him a 1K bonus?

Have you worked for a single company where the CEO was truly responsible for keeping profits high? You're telling me that the nurse that stays an hour late to ensure that one of her patient's get to the operating room on time isn't as responsible for the well being of the corporation?

Employees could be counted on to go above and beyond when there was a nice bonus at the end of the line. Now, corporations get average work because you don't have to be at the top of the company (and thus get a nice bonus), you just have to stay out of the
bottom (and thus on the chopping block).

And you guys don't know a damn thing about what sustains a multi-billion dollar company. We do surveys all the time and you know what makes people satisfied with their stay at our hospital? A smile. An employee that takes time out to show them to the right department. A nurse that stays late to ensure the proper care is given. Those things bring people back and bring profits in.

You can say that mental effort is needed and I can't argue with that. The problem is that many upper management types have no idea what the workers truly need and they over think everything.

It all goes back to Henry Ford also. It costs more to retrain people so why not compensate them enough to ensure they stay with a company for life? You don't think a nice bonus is a way to do that?
 
[quote name='depascal22']Instead, corporations somehow think it's a good idea to give one person a multi-million dollar bonus to ensure profits stay high no matter how bad they fuck up. How does that make sense?[/QUOTE]

Took care of that grammatical error for yeh.

[quote name='Capitalizt'][CEOs] have contributed enormously to the welfare of society and we have all received the incomparable bonus of their brains...Ideas that enhance productivity and improve the quality of life are the most highly rewarded...The free market is based on exchanging value for value, and any company that continues paying excessive salaries without gaining a value in return is acting irrationally. They might get away with it temporarily, but the market always punishes irrational behavior in the long run.[/QUOTE]

You're a comedy goldmine of post-hoc rationalization and overzealous idealism.
 
pascal, I'm sure companies want to employ the type of people you mention.. They don't want deadbeats who hate their jobs and quit at the drop of a hat. Why do you think Wal-Mart is paying an average of $4 above minimum wage? It isn't out of the kindness of their heart. It is because they attract better workers that way.. They attract workers who are happy earning that wage and willing to stay long term and learn the ins and outs of every department to become more productive. I'm willing to bet your shopping experience at Wal-Mart would be quite shitty if everyone there made $6/hr instead of nearly $11. Likewise, the hospital CEO wants good nurses who keep patients happy. This is why good nurses earn 50k+ a year instead of $15k. Employers who demand happy and productive workers must be willing to pay for them.. Otherwise they will be bid away by other employers. There is always a point of diminishing returns though..and at some point a balance is reached. The important point is that this balance is reached voluntarily..and any attempt to force an arbitrary price on anything (including labor) can only cause economic damage.

You're a comedy goldmine of post-hoc rationalization and overzealous idealism.
Click to expand...
and myke, you (as usual)..unable to respond to my questions or point to a logical flaw in my arguments, resort to ad-hominem attacks. Big surprise. :roll:
 
Let's leave Bill Gates out of this - it's clear he's actually a good soul amongst shitty colleagues. He makes huge charitable donations. That doesn't fully excuse some of the backroom shit MS has done over the years, but he as an individual is clearly exempt from this conversation.

I mean, dood wears Conquistadors and gets Circus Bucks. I can't folly him for that when Steve "I wish I was Dick Cheney" Ballmer is the real fuckstick running around over there.

While we're at it, let's excuse Tom of Tom's Shoes, since that guy is truly exemplary.

So there. 2 out of a few thousand that are actually good. Capitalism clearly works and the system isn't broken.
 
strell, Gates' charitable contributions should not be the standard by which you judge him as a "good soul". He has done far more good for the world through the selfish pursuit of profit than any bleeding heart bureaucrat could hope to accomplish in ten lifetimes. The pennies he has contributed to charity are dwarfed by the TRILLIONS in wealth created by Microsoft's productivity-enhancing software over the past few decades. Charity can be a virtue..but never forget that wealth can not be given away until it is created. For this reason you should consider PRODUCTION the highest virtue, and stop damning the goose that lays your golden eggs.
 
Because if a company isn't profitable it is the CEO's ass that is on the line. When you're the guy on the top, there is no one else to blame. People with the know how to consistently turn a profit are worth their salaries.

That said, a company can turn a profit and still go above and beyond what they have to for their employees. I wish i could remember the name, but in a management class we read about this company where the owner nearly ran the business into the ground helping employees. I can't remember the specifics, but he did way more than he probably should have for them. The company survived and i believe is still in business today.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']strell, Gates' charitable contributions should not be the standard by which you judge him as a "good soul". [/quote]

Yeah, I know. Doing good in the world shouldn't be a benchmark for calling someone good. I bet you never rewound VHS tapes back in the day, either.

He has done far more good for the world through the selfish pursuit of profit than any bleeding heart bureaucrat could hope to accomplish in ten lifetimes.
Click to expand...

And he's done far more bad in the same stroke. But don't let that fact bother your blindness.

The pennies he has contributed to charity are dwarfed by the TRILLIONS in wealth created by Microsoft's productivity-enhancing software over the past few decades.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'd say it's around the same amount as driving other companies out of business. I mean, that's what you Republicans are all about, right? Bidness at the cost of humanity? Let's ignore the trampling of startups and competition because at the end of the day, the strong prey on the weak with their mighty cadre of lawyers.

Charity can be a virtue..but never forget that wealth can not be given away until it is created.
Click to expand...

Mother Theresa. Ghandi. Volunteers at any number of organizations around the globe, such as the Peace Corps.

Wait. Mother Theresa - or M Tizzy to her peeps - rolled in a limo with bitches and bling. I forgot.

For this reason you should consider PRODUCTION the highest virtue, and stop damning the goose that lays your golden eggs.
Click to expand...

Congrats on finding an argument where none was to be had. I can't imagine the number of tiny things in daily life that routinely ruin your shit.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']and myke, you (as usual)..unable to respond to my questions or point to a logical flaw in my arguments, resort to ad-hominem attacks. Big surprise. :roll:[/QUOTE]

That's because your posts are frankenstein monsters of portions of arguments, consisting of vapid half-truths, willful ignorance of patterned examples to the contrary, broad-brushed emphatic fellatio of oppressive forms of free-market capitalism that exalt the end and disregard any criticisms on their own.

Your rhetoric doesn't challenge criticisms of free market capitalism. Your rhetoric tries to say they don't matter. Which means there's no reasoning with the kind of person who argues as you do, because there is no logic, just the monster.

You're the right-wing equivalent of those college ISO kids who peddle copies of the "Socialist Worker" newsletter, arguing that the Communist ideal still lives, and it has not worked historically because it's not been "done properly," with no further explanation as to what is entailed in doing things "properly." Your rhetorical style wills things to be true that are simply untrue, and then chastises others for failing to point out the flaws of the system that only exists in your mind.

Your rhetorical style acknowledges and minimizes the buddy system of crony capitalism where bonuses are earned in the tens of billions by CEOs irrespective of company performance. You don't argue against it; you simply act like they're anomalies that don't matter. Which is not a sleight of hand trick I'm dumb enough to fall for. They do matter, and that is the capitalism we live under. Telling me it doesn't matter, or that it's not "real" capitalism, doesn't at all change the fact that, in the world the both you and I live in, CEOs are earning millions of dollars for fucking up or succeeding. Your ideal meritocracy is as real as the flying spaghetti monster. In fact, it has as much potential to become real as does the flying spaghetti monster.

So get off your high horse. Your arguments are shit, and not honorable enough to deserve being deconstructed. Don't act appalled when all you can engage in is selective, tautological semantic bullshittery and act like you're suddenly William fucking Buckley. Because you're not even remotely close.

You get ad hominems until you can put together some compelling prose. That's how meritocracies work: put little effort into your work and you don't reap any rewards, put in effort and excel in your performance and you will be rewarded proportionately. Now act like you're a genuinely motivated free-market capitalist, and stop fucking half-assing it, and don't you dare condescend to me like I can't see right fuckin' through you.

Jesus fuckin' Christ. Ask me to respond to your nonsense. :roll:
 
[quote name='Strell']

Yeah, I'd say it's around the same amount as driving other companies out of business. I mean, that's what you Republicans are all about, right? Bidness at the cost of humanity? Let's ignore the trampling of startups and competition because at the end of the day, the strong prey on the weak with their mighty cadre of lawyers.
[/QUOTE]

Google was a startup at one point...
 
I also like that you write off crony capitalism that rewards incompetence as anomalous to the market and the only example you can bring to the table to support your argument is THE RICHEST MOTHERfuckING MAN ON THE PANTS SHITTING PLANET.

Bill Gates ain't an anomaly, though. :roll:
 
[quote name='Strell']Yeah, I know. Doing good in the world shouldn't be a benchmark for calling someone good. I bet you never rewound VHS tapes back in the day, either.[/quote]

First of all, every penny contributed to Mother Theresa's cause had to first be produced by a wealth-generating activity..so once again we must fall back to the highest virtue, production. Secondly, she was a poverty pimp who didn't do much aside from preaching the virtue of remaining poor and stupid..and preventing overpopulated disease-ridden countries like Africa from obtaining birth control...so I rank Bill Gates about 10000% higher than her on the mountain of virtue. And finally, any "damage" Gates did in the form of destroying competitors is dwarfed by his other contributions to the world.

And I wouldn't consider Pwning inferior competitors a negative anyway. ;) The market is can be brutal sometimes. Businesses competing against other businesses...fighting over a limited number of resources and striving to make a shitload of money is a very messy and ugly process..and it does have some unavoidable casualties..but in the end, it is a GREAT thing.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']First of all, every penny contributed to Mother Theresa's cause had to first be produced by a wealth-generating activity..so once again we must fall back to the highest virtue, production. Secondly, she was a poverty pimp who didn't do much aside from preaching the virtue of remaining poor and stupid..and preventing overpopulated disease-ridden countries like Africa from obtaining birth control...so I rank Bill Gates about 10000% higher than her on the mountain of virtue. [/quote]

Oh, I get it. You hate the fact that I showed your argument to be full of shit.

And finally, any "damage" Gates did in the form of destroying competitors is dwarfed by his other contributions to the world.
Click to expand...

Boy, that's a convenient argument. You could have written "Because!" and made more sense, actually.

And I wouldn't consider Pwning inferior competitors a negative anyway. ;) The market is can be brutal sometimes. Businesses competing against other businesses...fighting over a limited number of resources and striving to make a shitload of money is a very messy and ugly process..and it does have some unavoidable casualties..but in the end, it is a GREAT thing.
Click to expand...

Except the practices used in some cases aren't fair game.

The business world isn't a boxing match, where rules are set. You can't dickpunch the other guy.

But that's not true when you're the big dog and can purposely hurt any competition through any number of nefarious means.
 
lolol myke..proving my point yet again..getting worked up into an emotional frenzy and refusing to have a logical discussion yet again..shocking...shocking.. :lol:


[quote name='mykevermin']
Your rhetoric doesn't challenge criticisms of free market capitalism. Your rhetoric tries to say they don't matter.[/QUOTE]

They don't..because capitalism is proven to be the only system that creates the means of human survival. Any compromises or alternatives should be DOA to a rational man.

You're the right-wing equivalent of those college ISO kids who peddle copies of the "Socialist Worker" newsletter, arguing that the Communist ideal still lives, and it has not worked historically because it's not been "done properly," with no further explanation as to what is entailed in doing things "properly."
Click to expand...
Well, it is true that we have never seen pure capitalism in the world..but the extent to which countries survive today is the extent to which they have allowed markets to survive. I think even you can acknowledge this.

Your rhetorical style acknowledges and minimizes the buddy system of crony capitalism where bonuses are earned in the tens of billions by CEOs irrespective of company performance. You don't argue against it; you simply act like they're anomalies that don't matter.
Click to expand...
Ok myke. I'm against it. So what? You are right..It doesn't matter the slightest bit to me because I do not own the companies and have no interest at all in what anyone else earns. Nor should you. Stop trying to be an armchair dictator.

Which is not a sleight of hand trick I'm dumb enough to fall for. They do matter, and that is the capitalism we live under. Telling me it doesn't matter, or that it's not "real" capitalism, doesn't at all change the fact that, in the world the both you and I live in, CEOs are earning millions of dollars for fucking up or succeeding. Your ideal meritocracy is as real as the flying spaghetti monster. In fact, it has as much potential to become real as does the flying spaghetti monster.
Click to expand...
First of all, please don't insult my religion. Secondly, read my above point. Unless you are in charge of paying the CEO, it should be none of your concern. Stop being an envious and angry little douche.. Be content in the knowledge that companies who pay failed CEOS are engaged in money-losing investments and being put at a long term competitive disadvantage.

You get ad hominems until you can put together some compelling prose. That's how meritocracies work: put little effort into your work and you don't reap any rewards, put in effort and excel in your performance and you will be rewarded proportionately. Now act like you're a genuinely motivated free-market capitalist, and stop fucking half-assing it, and don't you dare condescend to me like I can't see right fuckin' through you.

Jesus fuckin' Christ. Ask me to respond to your nonsense. :roll:
Click to expand...
Well myke, all I see is a bitter little man who failed to address any of my earlier points. I really didn't want to make any assumptions about you, but I can only conclude fthat much of your "pissoffed-ness" is coming the fact that I touched a nerve with my description of your job or how far you have made it in life. I'm sorry if things haven't turned out as you planned bro. Work a bit harder and hopefully the class envy will be purged from your system one day.
 
I'm "worked up" because you're offering arguments that are embarrassingly bad and demanding they be treated as if you were Jonathan Swift, not Sloth from the Goonies.

I understand that you can't see that, and I'm trying to help you understand that you need not be embarrassed by your opinions, but by your inept argumentative techniques.

We can have a discussion once you learn how debate works.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']And your solution is..what? Someone posted a link in the other thread about the average wage for Wal-Mart associates last year being[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica]$10.68/hr. That is $4 above minimum wage and a damn good salary for a grocery bagger even if he's been on the job 20 years. You can't expect Wal-Mart to pay cashiers and stock boys $50k a year when they are so easily replaceable. If someone wants a better wage, they need to educate themselves and gain other skills to move forward in life. It is not the responsibility of Wal-Mart or Mcdonalds to do this for their workers. [/FONT]
[/QUOTE]

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

...

:rofl:
 
Just another tale from corporate America ...

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/bu...1BB456F6D7616AB88625762800024BB5?OpenDocument

According my "inside source", the company can walk up to anybody outside of the union and ask him or her to leave immediately.

The company will give said 58 year old a year's pay. Social Security won't kick in until 62. Of course, I'm sure there are plenty of companies willing to hire these people back at their $80K+ salaries.

Well, those managers probably deserved it.
 
God FoC, that's horrible, they should be able to walk up to anybody and fire them immediately! Damn unions!
 
There was a time when my dad wanted to be management. After they forced all of the retired management to pay for their insurance in full, he pulled back on that ambition.
 
[quote name='SpazX']God FoC, that's horrible, they should be able to walk up to anybody and fire them immediately! Damn unions![/QUOTE]

I know you're just being an ass, but I'm surprised at how far you stuck your neck out on this one.

In case you didn't notice that's some serious age discrimination. It may seem funny if you're young and ignorant (and I know in your case that's at least half right) but it's not funny to the managers who are affected.

You want to go down this road again, you want to deregulate energy, put it all in the hands of a bunch of execs looking to raid the company for every last cent (including looting pensions, raising electrical bills, and electricity routing tomfoolery...) - you really want another Enron?

I'm disappointed SpazX, you're not what I call a "fast learner".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top