NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: In an imperfect world, there are always going to be disparities between people at the top and people at the bottom. But this much??? Sadly, it's getting worse, and the high pay at the top doesn't seem to be linked to much of anything at all.

What do you think can be done to bring some sanity to this?


Off to the Races Again, Leaving Many Behind (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/business/businessspecial/09pay.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin)


Published: April 9, 2006
OMAHA

IN 1977, James P. Smith, a shaggy-haired 21-year-old known as Skinny, took a job as a meat grinder at what is now a ConAgra Foods pepperoni plant. At $6.40 an hour, it was among the best-paying jobs in town for a high school graduate.

Nearly three decades later, Mr. Smith still arrives at the same factory, shortly before his 3:30 a.m. shift. His hair has thinned; he has put on weight. Today, his union job pays him $13.25 an hour to operate the giant blenders that crush 3,600-pound blocks of pork and beef.

His earnings, which total about $28,000 a year, have not kept pace even with Omaha's low cost of living. The company eliminated bonuses about a decade ago. And now, almost 50, Mr. Smith is concerned that his $80,000 retirement nest egg will not be enough — especially since his plant is on a list of ones ConAgra wants to sell.

"I will probably have to work until I die," Mr. Smith said in his Nebraskan baritone.

Not so for Bruce C. Rohde, ConAgra's former chairman and chief executive, who stepped down last September amid investor pressure. He is set for life.

All told, Mr. Rohde, 57, received more than $45 million during his eight years at the helm, and was given an estimated $20 million retirement package as he walked out the door.

Each year from 1997 to 2005, when Mr. Rohde led ConAgra, he was awarded either a large cash bonus, a generous grant of stock or options, or valuable benefits, such as extra years' credit toward his guaranteed pension.

But the company, one of the nation's largest food companies with more than 100 brands, struggled under his watch. ConAgra routinely missed earnings targets and underperformed its peers. Its share price fell 28 percent. The company cut more than 9,000 jobs. Accounting problems surfaced in every one of Mr. Rohde's eight years.

Even when ConAgra restated its financial results, which lowered earnings in 2003 and 2004, Mr. Rohde's $16.4 million in bonuses for those two years stayed the same.

Mr. Rohde turned down repeated requests for an interview. Chris Kircher, a ConAgra spokesman, said that Mr. Rohde received no bonuses in 2001 and 2005, evidence that his compensation was based in part on performance. He added that Mr. Rohde's severance was negotiated 10 years ago, when he was first hired, not as he left. The whole package was "negotiated under a different board, a different point in the company's history, and in a different environment," Mr. Kircher said.

The disparity between Mr. Rohde's and Mr. Smith's pay packages may be striking, but it is not unusual. Instead, it is the norm.

Even here in the heartland, where corporate chieftains do not take home pay packages that are anywhere near those of Hollywood moguls or Wall Street bankers, the pay gap between the boss and the rank-and-file is wide.

New technology and low-cost labor in places like China and India have put downward pressure on the wages and benefits of the average American worker. Executive pay, meanwhile, continues to rise at an astonishing rate.

The average pay for a chief executive increased 27 percent last year, to $11.3 million, according to a survey of 200 large companies by Pearl Meyer & Partners, the compensation practice of Clark Consulting. The median chief executive's pay was somewhat lower, at $8.4 million, for an increase of 10.3 percent over 2004. By contrast, the average wage-earner took home $43,480 in 2004, according to Commerce Department data. And recent wage data from the Labor Department suggest that workers' weekly pay, up 2.9 percent in 2005, failed to keep pace with inflation of 3.3 percent.

Many forces are pushing executive pay into the stratosphere. Huge gains from stock options during the 1990's bull market are one major reason. So is the recruitment of celebrity C.E.O.'s, which has bid up the compensation of all top executives.

Compensation consultants, who are hired to advise boards, are often motivated to produce big paydays for managers. After all, the boss can hand their company lucrative contracts down the road.

Compensation committees, meanwhile, are often reluctant to withhold a bonus or stock award for poor performance. Many big shareholders, such as mutual funds and pension plans, have chosen not to cast votes critical of management. The results have been a growing gap between chief executives and ordinary employees, and often between the boss and managers one layer below.

[ This article is four pages long. Read the rest of the article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/business/businessspecial/09pay.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th). ]

The most feasible solution seems to be to somehow increase the number of qualified CEOs, which would cause their pay to decrease.

I believe that the Reagan/Thatcher ideology has created the conditions that are sending the West in a downward spiral to ruin. Politicians need to stop listening to the corporate lobby and realise that they are there to maintain an economy that serves all of the people, not just the elite.

Other than rants about capitalism, what do you think can be done to bring some sanity to this?
You know, I'm too badly versed in economic theory to rant about capitalism in a well-phrased, well-sourced, and well-thought-out way, which is why I never do it on here (I do in real life, where no one will jump down my throat for it :p).

But this is one of a handful of issues where I can't even *think* of how I could reply with anything but a rant about the perversions of capitalism.

So I'll just stay out of it. :)

You know, I'm too badly versed in economic theory to rant about capitalism in a well-phrased, well-sourced, and well-thought-out way, which is why I never do it on here (I do in real life, where no one will jump down my throat for it :p).

But this is one of a handful of issues where I can't even *think* of how I could reply with anything but a rant about the perversions of capitalism.

So I'll just stay out of it. :)
No, please don't. I promise to never, ever "jump down your throat!" ;)

You know, I'm too badly versed in economic theory to rant about capitalism in a well-phrased, well-sourced, and well-thought-out way, which is why I never do it on here (I do in real life, where no one will jump down my throat for it :p).

But this is one of a handful of issues where I can't even *think* of how I could reply with anything but a rant about the perversions of capitalism.

So I'll just stay out of it. :)

I'm pretty with you here - the only way you could do something about it involves the state machinery, and implementing slightly more realistic tax rates on those at the top so that the money could be used for those at the bottom. Or actually implementing a decent minimum wage and not allowing companies to dance round the issue with short term, part time contracts. Or some combination of the 2. Not likely under many of the current governmental office holders in the western world...

I'm pretty with you here - the only way you could do something about it involves the state machinery, and implementing slightly more realistic tax rates on those at the top so that the money could be used for those at the bottom. Or actually implementing a decent minimum wage and not allowing companies to dance round the issue with short term, part time contracts. Or some combination of the 2. Not likely under many of the current governmental office holders in the western world...
Perhaps surprisingly enough, I agree! The real trick is to do so without "killing the goose that lays the golden eggs" ... the incentive to start small businesses, be creative, etc. I tend to lean toward a mandated span between the highest salary paid and the lowest hourly wage, with an exemption for business owners/entrepreneurs. Tie them together so that organizations would think twice about raising the top executives' salaries, but allow for sufficient incentive for those thinking about starting a new business.

..... Today, his union job pays him $13.25 an hour to operate the giant blenders that crush 3,600-pound blocks of pork and beef.
......

The union in question seems a bit lame. That's where the wage pressure should come from.

Collective bargaining can work wonders.

Perhaps surprisingly enought, I agree! The real trick is to do so without "killing the goose that lays the golden eggs" ... the incentive to start small businesses, be creative, etc. I tend to lean toward a mandated span between the highest salary paid and the lowest hourly wage, with an exemption for business owners/entrepreneurs. Tie them together so that organizations would think twice about raising the top executives' salaries, but allow for sufficient incentive for those thinking about starting a new business.

Interesting idea. It's always intriguing to me to hear reformist views, given i really believe in smashing the entire capitalist system, but also believe it's pretty damn unlikely to happen until we have a technological advance that makes the industrial revolution look small scale. I like your idea.

No, please don't. I promise to never, ever "jump down your throat!" ;)
Oh great, does that mean that we all can "rant about the perversions of capitalism", without worrying about you jumping down our throats? :rolleyes:

Why do pay disparities matter?

What matters is the quality of life of the actual workers and such.

I mean, the CEO of $huge_company gets paid, say, $1 million a year. But the sheer amount of employees in this company is such that even had he received no pay at all, dividing his pay among them would not improve their lifestyle a bit.

Has the quality of life of the average worker, his purchasing power improved compared to the purchasing power of the average worker 10 years ago?

Has the quality of life of the average worker, his purchasing power improved compared to the purchasing power of the average worker 10 years ago?

Nope. (http://www.kyklosproductions.com/articles/wages.html)

Stagnating Workers' Wages
In 1979 the American worker's average hourly wage was equal to $15.91 (adjusted for inflation in 2001 dollars). By 1989 it had reached only $16.63/hour. That's a gain of only 7 cents a year for the entire Reagan decade.

But wait. Things get worse! By 1995 it had risen to only $16.71, or virtually no gain whatsoever over the 6 years between 1989 and 1995. During the great 'boom years' between 1995 and 2000 it rose briefly to $18.33 per hour. In other words, from 1979 to 2000, even before the most recent Bush recession, after more than two decades the American worker's average wages increased on average only 11.5 cents per hour per year! With nearly all of that coming in the five so-called 'boom' years of 1995-2000, and most of that lost once again in the last three years. And that includes for all workers, even those with college degrees.

The picture is worse for workers who had no college degree. That's more than 100 million workers, or 72.1% of the workforce. For them there was no 'boom of 1995-2000' whatsoever. Their average real hourly wages were less at the end of 2000 than they were in 1979! And since 2000 their wages have continued to slide further.

Why do pay disparities matter?

What matters is the quality of life of the actual workers and such.

I mean, the CEO of $huge_company gets paid, say, $1 million a year. But the sheer amount of employees in this company is such that even had he received no pay at all, dividing his pay among them would not improve their lifestyle a bit.

Has the quality of life of the average worker, his purchasing power improved compared to the purchasing power of the average worker 10 years ago?

The article would seem to suggest not:

His earnings, which total about $28,000 a year, have not kept pace even with Omaha's low cost of living. The company eliminated bonuses about a decade ago. And now, almost 50, Mr. Smith is concerned that his $80,000 retirement nest egg will not be enough — especially since his plant is on a list of ones ConAgra wants to sell.

Emphasis mine.

The most feasible solution seems to be to somehow increase the number of qualified CEOs, which would cause their pay to decrease.
Wouldn't count on it.

Collective bargaining can work wonders.
Not when collective firing nets the CEO more cash.

Oh great, does that mean that we all can "rant about the perversions of capitalism", without worrying about you jumping down our throats? :rolleyes:
LOL! No. I retract that portion of the OP. :p

Why do pay disparities matter?

What matters is the quality of life of the actual workers and such.

I mean, the CEO of $huge_company gets paid, say, $1 million a year. But the sheer amount of employees in this company is such that even had he received no pay at all, dividing his pay among them would not improve their lifestyle a bit.

Regardless, that doesn't excuse a CEO getting a huge paycheck (ave $8.4mill if you read the article) when their handling off the company is causing it to go downhill.
CEOs are, as far as I can see, the only position where one can fuck-up not once, not twice, but continually for years and still not only stay on your job but incredibly get 'performance' bonuses for your actions. What other job can offer you that?


Something needs to be done about being able to revise CEO contracts, to stop this farce of granting performance bonuses and huge retirement packages to incompetent managers, simply because it was written in there when they started.
How about a performance bonus based on what the company employees think of the CEO?

Oh great, does that mean that we all can "rant about the perversions of capitalism", without worrying about you jumping down our throats? :rolleyes:
See, that's exactly what I meant. I thought it'd be appropriate not to write "rant about capitalism" as such, so I put in "perversions". Seemed like a good idea at the time. *shrugs*

And I also wasn't asking anyone to refrain from jumping down my throat, not the OP, not anybody else. I only wanted to point out that while I think the topic is a highly important one, I won't get into a discussion of it, because personally I can't see how to discuss it outside the question of what is wrong with capitalism (or its perversions, take your pick).

And I'm aware that it's rather unnecessary to post in a thread just to say you won't be posting in that thread, but seeing how I was referring to the OP preempting what to me seemed like the core of any potential answer, I figured I'd do it anyway.

I fail to see a problem with this. Mr. Smith’s life could have turned out a lot different if he had made different choices about his career and his life. Although the meat grinding job may have been the only one he could get when he graduated from High School, he could have chosen to go to college, even on a part time basis so he could get a degree and qualify for a better job either in or out of the company. He could have chosen to go to trade school (either full time or part time) or enter into an apprenticeship program to learn a skilled trade that pays more than a job grinding meat. He could have chosen to move to a different city or state where employment opportunities were greater. Therefore, he must take a large portion of the responsibility for the fact he is earning the wage he is earning.

There is no disparity in the wage Mr. Smith is being paid and the wage Mr. Rhode is making. You cannot compare their wages because you can’t compare their jobs. Obviously, their responsibilities are very different, their skills are very different, and their education level is probably very different. If you want to compare wages, you should compare the wages of the meat grinder with the wages of other unskilled or semiskilled workers and the wages of the CEO with the wages of people with a comparable job.

Obviously, the company feels that the wages paid to each individual are reasonable. They probably wouldn’t have much of a problem finding someone else to grind the meat for the same wage they are paying Mr. Smith. They might have a great deal of difficulty finding someone to replace Mr. Rhode for the same compensation package he is receiving.

If you want to make sure people have the opportunity to earn a very good wage, you must insure they have to opportunity to get an education beyond High School or have the opportunity to learn a skilled trade. It is up to the individual to take advantage of the opportunity or not.

I fail to see a problem with this. Mr. Smith’s life could have turned out a lot different if he had made different choices about his career and his life.
It's not about this particular man. If he had made different choices (even assuming that he had the opportunity) then someone else would be in this job. The issue is about keeping everyone's wages at a level that allows them to live a quality life.

If you want to make sure people have the opportunity to earn a very good wage, you must insure they have to opportunity to get an education beyond High School or have the opportunity to learn a skilled trade. It is up to the individual to take advantage of the opportunity or not.
I agree that people should have the right to every educational opportunity that they are capable of and willing to work hard for (regardless of how rich they are). But you must also remember that simply educating everyone is not a fix-all. Mass education gives mostly good returns, but it also devalues education on one's CV, because so many other people have education too. It's for this reason that many people with degrees are working unskilled, menial jobs.

There's only so much individual citizens can do. The government has a duty to protect society by not allowing the income gap to grow too much. Countries with huge wealth gaps tend to be the same countries with huge crime rates.

There is no disparity in the wage Mr. Smith is being paid and the wage Mr. Rhode is making. You cannot compare their wages because you can’t compare their jobs. Obviously, their responsibilities are very different, their skills are very different, and their education level is probably very different. If you want to compare wages, you should compare the wages of the meat grinder with the wages of other unskilled or semiskilled workers and the wages of the CEO with the wages of people with a comparable job.
You're completely missing the point of the article there.
Mr. Rhode in 8 years of managing that company fucked-up every year. Stocks went down, thousands were laid off, market share shrunk. And what happened? He gets 'perfomance' bonuses, stocks, retirement packages worth millions.
If Mr Smith fucked up once, he'd have got a warning. Twice and he'd have been out on his ear with nothing. Rhode mismanaged for 8 years and got $45 million.
The reason Smith is getting such low pay is because Rhode has so screwed everything up, the company can't afford to pay Smith any more than he's getting. Yet at the same token, the person whose responsible for the bad state of the company is given even more money.
Where's the justice in that?
Someone works as hard as they can, does a damn good job and is told, "Sorry, but the company can't afford raises this year cause the CEO made some dumb decisions. Oh, and btw, I'm sure you'll be happy to know that we've just given the guy who made those dumb decisions another couple of $mill."
It's not about comparing wages. It's about why some people are allowed to get away with being paid a fortune to sodomise a company and everyone who works for it.

...The issue is about keeping everyone's wages at a level that allows them to live a quality life....The government has a duty to protect society by not allowing the income gap to grow too much. Countries with huge wealth gaps tend to be the same countries with huge crime rates.

I respectfully disagree. Individuals must take the responsibility to provide for themselves and their famalies and if that means taking advantage of opportunities for education, apprenticship or working two jobs then so be it. The only responsibility or duty the government has is to take care of those with mental or physical disabilities that prevent them from working.

You're completely missing the point of the article there. SNIP It's not about comparing wages. It's about why some people are allowed to get away with being paid a fortune to sodomise a company and everyone who works for it.

I don't think I missed the point. Here is a quote from the article,

"The disparity between Mr. Rohde's and Mr. Smith's pay packages may be striking, but it is not unusual. Instead, it is the norm.

Even here in the heartland, where corporate chieftains do not take home pay packages that are anywhere near those of Hollywood moguls or Wall Street bankers, the pay gap between the boss and the rank-and-file is wide.

New technology and low-cost labor in places like China and India have put downward pressure on the wages and benefits of the average American worker. Executive pay, meanwhile, continues to rise at an astonishing rate."

I respectfully disagree. Individuals must take the responsibility to provide for themselves and their famalies and if that means taking advantage of opportunities for education, apprenticship or working two jobs then so be it. The only responsibility or duty the government has is to take care of those with mental or physical disabilities that prevent them from working.
You're just rolling out ready-made right-wing ideological points. I didn't say that the government should take care of everyone. I said that they should make sure that everyone can take care of themselves, with a view to creating a healthy society.

You're just rolling out ready-made right-wing ideological points. I didn't say that the government should take care of everyone. I said that they should make sure that everyone can take care of themselves, with a view to creating a healthy society.

And how do you propose the government "make sure everyone can take care of themselves?" How did the government fail Mr. Smith? They did not deny him the opportunity for an education, they did not prevent him from finding a better paying job, and they did not prevent him from working a second job if that is what he chose to do. What more could or should the government do for Mr. Smith?

I don't think I missed the point. Here is a quote from the article,

"The disparity between Mr. Rohde's and Mr. Smith's pay packages may be striking, but it is not unusual. Instead, it is the norm.

Even here in the heartland, where corporate chieftains do not take home pay packages that are anywhere near those of Hollywood moguls or Wall Street bankers, the pay gap between the boss and the rank-and-file is wide.

New technology and low-cost labor in places like China and India have put downward pressure on the wages and benefits of the average American worker. Executive pay, meanwhile, continues to rise at an astonishing rate."
Afraid you did miss the point, and are still missing the point.
One line does not sum up the article. You seemed to havemanaged to skip over the paragraphs that detail how Rhode managed to screw up the company yet still receive massive pay, bonus and retirement deals. Read it again, slowly this time.

The disparities will continue to increase in the U.S. as long as the Repubs have complete control. There must always be a balance between socialism and capitalism, a constant tug-o-war.
Basically people are voting against their own self-interests because we are becoming more and more conservative as far as religion goes. The Republican agenda is very conservative religiously, i.e. pro-life, no gay marriage, no separation of church and state, Judaeo/Christian nation (although the Judaeo part I'm sure will go away also), scienctific theory must conform to religion, etc. I think many Repubs would be in favor of national healthcare, some would even approve of a decent minimum wage and some are even pro-union but they will even suffer the demise of the middle class for religious reasons. It should come as no surprise seeing what others will do for religion in other religious countries.
Also capitalism has taken on the aspects of religion itself in that it must be unquestioned as a matter of faith and it's become a sin to consider anything socialist.

We see this and yet the "Heartland" goes to the polls and elects Republican after Republican when Democrats are the ones screaming for more progressive tax structures, more help for the poor, increased minimum wages, etc, etc. I am just stunned by the effects of religion on the human mind, I really, really am. They sanction the destruction of the Constitution and their own livelihood so that gay people can't get married and specific clumps of cells inside of women are protected from harm. I am amazed everyday by this phenomenon.

We see this and yet the "Heartland" goes to the polls and elects Republican after Republican when Democrats are the ones screaming for more progressive tax structures, more help for the poor, increased minimum wages, etc, etc. I am just stunned by the effects of religion on the human mind, I really, really am. They sanction the destruction of the Constitution and their own livelihood so that gay people can't get married and specific clumps of cells inside of women are protected from harm. I am amazed everyday by this phenomenon.
Do you know this book (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080507774X/qid=1144606143/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-6195670-2658266?n=507846&s=books&v=glance)? I've only started reading it, but it sure takes a look at exactly those questions you bring up (that don't cease to stun and amaze me, either). You should check it out.

Ugh, you are so right. There really needs to be a living wage, and lots of taxes on the wealthy. ...kind of like in my nation. What a coincidence!

See, that's exactly what I meant. I thought it'd be appropriate not to write "rant about capitalism" as such, so I put in "perversions". Seemed like a good idea at the time. *shrugs*

And I also wasn't asking anyone to refrain from jumping down my throat, not the OP, not anybody else. I only wanted to point out that while I think the topic is a highly important one, I won't get into a discussion of it, because personally I can't see how to discuss it outside the question of what is wrong with capitalism (or its perversions, take your pick).

And I'm aware that it's rather unnecessary to post in a thread just to say you won't be posting in that thread, but seeing how I was referring to the OP preempting what to me seemed like the core of any potential answer, I figured I'd do it anyway.
I do hope that you don't think my sarcasm was directed at you? It was very much directed at the OP, who tends to direct traffic in his threads with curt one liners to those he disagrees with, which IMHO tends to stiffle any meaningful debate.

In regards to your post, if I had made that statement, I honestly do not believe that I would have received the same reply that you did. He would encourage you to proceed, which he did, and he generally would tell me to get stuffed, or just refuse to reply.

Also, some of my sarcasm was directed to what I believe to be his partiality towards the fairer sex. An attractive woman such as yourself, will likely fare better than an old crusty Canadian, such as myself.

Do you know this book (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080507774X/qid=1144606143/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-6195670-2658266?n=507846&s=books&v=glance)? I've only started reading it, but it sure takes a look at exactly those questions you bring up (that don't cease to stun and amaze me, either). You should check it out.
I read the previews and it sure looks like an interesting read. The premise sure fits well with my basic knowledge of the situation, which has been greatly augmented over the past 2+ years on this forum.

The middle class is being slowly eroded out of existence. Unless something's done, there's only going to be two levels in society: The filthy rich who don't have to do much of anything to make money, and then everyone else who hold five jobs but are still going to lose the house anyways.

It's also about society's skewed sense of priorities. Why else would athletes who are basically playing games or entertainers make millions or billions of dollars, whereas teachers as one example get paid pittance in comparison that is likely not enough to live a normal life on free of looming debts?

As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved, government has no place robbing Peter to pay Paul regardless of his need.

An individual exists for his own sake; another's need is not a valid claim on his property.

I do hope that you don't think my sarcasm was directed at you? It was very much directed at the OP, who tends to direct traffic in his threads with curt one liners to those he disagrees with, which IMHO tends to stiffle any meaningful debate.

In regards to your post, if I had made that statement, I honestly do not believe that I would have received the same reply that you did. He would encourage you to proceed, which he did, and he generally would tell me to get stuffed, or just refuse to reply.

Also, some of my sarcasm was directed to what I believe to be his partiality towards the fairer sex.
I actually did think that your sarcasm was indeed (at least partly) directed at me.

But yeah, I can certainly see your point.

Sorry, Eutrusca, but you *did* give me more leeway than you would have given others, methinks. As nice as that is, it also makes me look like a jerk. And you wouldn't want that, would you now. ;)

As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved, government has no place robbing Peter to pay Paul regardless of his need.

An individual exists for his own sake; another's need is not a valid claim on his property.
IF TRUE capitalism existed in the US, then you would have approximately 150 Million "entrepreneurs". How would capitalism survive under such a premise?

I mean, the CEO of $huge_company gets paid, say, $1 million a year. But the sheer amount of employees in this company is such that even had he received no pay at all, dividing his pay among them would not improve their lifestyle a bit.$200 per year in the case of ConAgra - in that particular case, not too much. Less than a 1% raise.

There have been plenty of recent cases where overpaid CEOs have come out of it worth more than the company after the end of their time in office.

Those of you who are ardently in favor of capitalism should note that overpaying CEOs is a bad thing for capitalists, i.e., the actual investors who own the company, just as overpaying the actual production staff is a bad thing.

The current corporate culture, however, involves an administrative business elite who - often serving on boards of directors - are fairly happy to overpay their fellow elites. It's a sort of shell game that helps rich people who know other rich people make lots of money, while small investors get shafted; the power amplification due to voting block size in a weighted voting system combined with the fact that most small investors don't even bother to exercise their votes mean that this will continue to happen indefinitely until the system is changed, or small investors wake up en masse and realize they're having their pockets picked.

Compared to the net profits, CEO salaries are often quite significant - and growing more and more significant in many cases.

The middle class is being slowly eroded out of existence. Unless something's done, there's only going to be two levels in society: The filthy rich who don't have to do much of anything to make money, and then everyone else who hold five jobs but are still going to lose the house anyways.

It's also about society's skewed sense of priorities. Why else would athletes who are basically playing games or entertainers make millions or billions of dollars, whereas teachers as one example get paid pittance in comparison that is likely not enough to live a normal life on free of looming debts?

It is the middle class whose dollars go to buy the tickets that support those athletes and antertainers. :rolleyes:

Those of you who are ardently in favor of capitalism should note that overpaying CEOs is a bad thing for capitalists, i.e., the actual investors who own the company, just as overpaying the actual production staff is a bad thing.

And you are correct.

What we are opposed to is government mandating restrictions on executive salaries. That is a restriction of freedom of association, freedom of contract, and one's right to dispose of his property as he wishes. It is not government's place to compel sound business judgment. If the stockholders want to make shitty decisions, that's their prerogative.

I don't think that voting Democrat would especially help matters. Their values and economic policies are more or less the same as those of the Republicans.

What would perhaps help matters would be to revitalise the unions.

Do you know this book (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080507774X/qid=1144606143/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-6195670-2658266?n=507846&s=books&v=glance)? I've only started reading it, but it sure takes a look at exactly those questions you bring up (that don't cease to stun and amaze me, either). You should check it out.
I think that this book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0141015365/qid=1144611136/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_3_1/202-7737539-8910241) is better, especially for those of us who are not from America.

And how do you propose the government "make sure everyone can take care of themselves?" How did the government fail Mr. Smith? They did not deny him the opportunity for an education, they did not prevent him from finding a better paying job, and they did not prevent him from working a second job if that is what he chose to do. What more could or should the government do for Mr. Smith?
a) make education more accessible to those who are not rich already (not a USA strong suit)

b) not encouraging the demise of unions in America (more or less a necessity for any better paying jobs to actually exist)

c) not encouraging the export of jobs to other countries

And you are correct.

What we are opposed to is government mandating restrictions on executive salaries. That is a restriction of freedom of association, freedom of contract, and one's right to dispose of his property as he wishes. It is not government's place to compel sound business judgment. If the stockholders want to make shitty decisions, that's their prerogative.However, it is - by and large - not the common stockholders making shitty decisions. They're getting railroaded.

Think carefully. If you own, say, 40% of a company's voting stock (perhaps there are also non-voting shares), and there are no other large stockholders, you can exercise practically dictatorial power over stockholder decisions in most cases. In order to stop you, someone needs to get unprecedented turnout among all the small shareholders, and get them all to vote against you. 50.1%, and nobody can do a thing to stop you, even though you only own half the company.

Even a 20-25% block in a typical publicly held company gives you enormous amounts of power. The voting power of a small stockholder is disproportionately smaller than the tiny share they own of the company.

And then - on a completely seperate note - there's the matter of personal connections between board members and CEOs. That's not what's supposed to be happening, but it does, and quiet quid pro quo arrangements (sometimes illegal) really cheat the small investor - and, as things are currently arranged, there's nothing they can really do about it unless the executives get really sloppy and the company bombs spectacularly while working overtime to cheat investors (ala Enron.)

Even then, the small investors rarely get their money back.

It is the middle class whose dollars go to buy the tickets that support those athletes and antertainers. :rolleyes:I would disagree with that. Everybody - if they can afford it, and sometimes if they can't - buys entertainment. The middle class can afford tickets to see things live more often.

That said, the athletes and entertainers themselves often aren't the one making an actual mint, and in some cases legal action addressing (for example) apparent price-fixing (as in the case of music CDs) has been attempted.

I do hope that you don't think my sarcasm was directed at you? It was very much directed at the OP, who tends to direct traffic in his threads with curt one liners to those he disagrees with, which IMHO tends to stiffle any meaningful debate.

In regards to your post, if I had made that statement, I honestly do not believe that I would have received the same reply that you did. He would encourage you to proceed, which he did, and he generally would tell me to get stuffed, or just refuse to reply.

Also, some of my sarcasm was directed to what I believe to be his partiality towards the fairer sex. An attractive woman such as yourself, will likely fare better than an old crusty Canadian, such as myself.
Oh, GROAN! That's hardly fair! :(

I tend to give as good as I get. You and I have "history," whereas there is no "history" between whereyouthinkyougoing and me. Should she change and become ideological and belligerant and illogical, she will get the same treatment as all those who have led me to believe, based on experience with them, that they're simply trying to rant at my expense. :p

Sorry, Eutrusca, but you *did* give me more leeway than you would have given others, methinks. As nice as that is, it also makes me look like a jerk. And you wouldn't want that, would you now. ;)
[ considers himself properly chastised by BOTH of you! ] :(

I'm pretty with you here - the only way you could do something about it involves the state machinery, and implementing slightly more realistic tax rates on those at the top so that the money could be used for those at the bottom. Or actually implementing a decent minimum wage and not allowing companies to dance round the issue with short term, part time contracts. Or some combination of the 2. Not likely under many of the current governmental office holders in the western world...
Or what about enforcing or crafting laws that don't allow corporations to set up headquarters outside the US, thereby avoiding taxes?

As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved, government has no place robbing Peter to pay Paul regardless of his need.

An individual exists for his own sake; another's need is not a valid claim on his property.
"Eminent"? Hardly. Objectivism is a load of horseshit.

"Eminent"? Hardly. Objectivism is a load of horseshit.

I defy you to refute a single word she ever said or wrote.

It is the middle class whose dollars go to buy the tickets that support those athletes and antertainers. :rolleyes:
Sad, but true.

I'll NEVER go to a live pro sporting event, and the last pop concert I went to was in 1986 (not telling who for the sake of avoiding unnecessary comments about my taste in music when I was 16). I only rarely see movies in theaters, and most "blockbusters" do very little for me, entertainment-wise.

Idol worship is a problem, I'd just never contemplated how much of an economic problem it was. It's a fantasy to imagine we'll ever be a society who returns to the roots of entertainment -- locally-produced home-grown talent playing or performing for the love of the game or the art. It's all about marketing now, and it makes me ill.

As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved, government has no place robbing Peter to pay Paul regardless of his need.

An individual exists for his own sake; another's need is not a valid claim on his property.
Did Ayn Rand also "prove" that private property was 'natural' and not dependent on government-imposed laws?

I defy you to refute a single word she ever said or wrote.
I don't have to. Millions of Christians do every day. One has to swallow macroevolution to swallow Rand. Myself, I'm no fan of false altruism, but unenlightened self-interest is just as bad.

As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved, government has no place robbing Peter to pay Paul regardless of his need.

An individual exists for his own sake; another's need is not a valid claim on his property.
So says, Peter.

By the way, when I read Ayn Rands books, I completely missed her point. I got a much different philosophy from her fiction than the philosophy she wanted me to get. Just thought that was weird.

So says, Peter.

By the way, when I read Ayn Rands books, I completely missed her point. I got a much different philosophy from her fiction than the philosophy she wanted me to get. Just thought that was weird.

What point did you get?

Millions of Christians do every day.

No, they don't.

Rand refuted Christianity, not the other way around.

I find it especially funny that people who are so fiercely individualistic follow the words of a dead woman like sheep follow shepherds.

Those who can't come up with their own ideals receive no respect from me, and rightly so.

I find it especially funny that people who are so fiercely individualistic follow the words of a dead woman like sheep follow shepherds.

Those who can't come up with their own ideals receive no respect from me, and rightly so.
A worthy sentiment, but is it possible? I've always been under the impression that there's very little new under the sun.

No, they don't.

Rand refuted Christianity, not the other way around.
So you say.

No, they don't.

Rand refuted Christianity, not the other way around.

How? The main vibe I got from her is 'you're either a rich perfect capitalist or a poor lazy commie'. I admit to having not spent long ith her works out of pure loathing but it's most of what I remember.

A worthy sentiment, but is it possible? I've always been under the impression that there's very little new under the sun.

Well, what I mean is that people should figure things out for themselves, rather than directly follow others.

Of course, many people will find that they agree with some philosophers, and that's just fine and dandy. I'm just saying that they should find out just who they really are.

Like I said, I have no respect whatsoever for anyone who subscribes to a cookie-cutter idealogy.

What point did you get?
More of a "true artists are special so treat them nice" kind of thing. Not really the whole benefit yourself even if it's to the detriment of others kind of thing.

Well, what I mean is that people should figure things out for themselves, rather than directly follow others.

Of course, many people will find that they agree with some philosophers, and that's just fine and dandy. I'm just saying that they should find out just who they really are.

Like I said, I have no respect whatsoever for anyone who subscribes to a cookie-cutter idealogy.
I applaud your statement's intent.

I just don't think it's possible to build your own ideology or philosphical view without first going through stages provided by those who have written about philosophy in the past. I read The Fountainhead because it's angle has some philosophy of creativity in it (the same reason I read Nietzsche as well, his takes on Beauty and Aestheics). I took what I wanted to take from both experiences and left the rest behind.

That process in necessary, and while going through it, one is certainly prone to becoming an adherent to the most recent philosophy you've read. This is not necessarly a bad thing unless you reach that point and stop thinking. That's where your cookie-cutter mentality arises.

Without ranting about capitalism? You make it hard.

Seriously, though, there is a good deal more to this than the mere result of inequities within the capitalist system. If the US economy needs to have a certain place in the world economy, and people lack the education for that place, simply raising wages and benefits won't solve the problem, ultimately. What's necessary is an effective, large-scale job training program that permits formerly unskilled or low-skilled workers to enter the "New Economy." Then, let free trade do its work, and when people are outsourced or out-competed, bring them into the sectors of the economy that can compete on a global level. The idea is to globalize - which at this point is unpreventable, and which in the long run will almost certainly be beneficial - while minimizing the harm to those in the vulnerable sectors of the economy, of which there are plenty.

When the demand for unskilled, "working poor" jobs is reduced, those who for whatever reason remain in those jobs will have more leverage to demand higher wages and benefits.

I applaud your statement's intent.

I just don't think it's possible to build your own ideology or philosphical view without first going through stages provided by those who have written about philosophy in the past. I read The Fountainhead because it's angle has some philosophy of creativity in it (the same reason I read Nietzsche as well, his takes on Beauty and Aestheics). I took what I wanted to take from both experiences and left the rest behind.

That process in necessary, and while going through it, one is certainly prone to becoming an adherent to the most recent philosophy you've read. This is not necessarly a bad thing unless you reach that point and stop thinking. That's where your cookie-cutter mentality arises.

I guess that's true, too. I just found it easy to develop my own views on things without reading any philosphical materials. I'm sure I hold similar views to more than a few famous people, but I don't really give a shit if I do.

And frankly, I don't want to find out one way or another. I couldn't possibly care less.

I applaud your statement's intent.

I just don't think it's possible to build your own ideology or philosphical view without first going through stages provided by those who have written about philosophy in the past. I read The Fountainhead because it's angle has some philosophy of creativity in it (the same reason I read Nietzsche as well, his takes on Beauty and Aestheics). I took what I wanted to take from both experiences and left the rest behind.

That process in necessary, and while going through it, one is certainly prone to becoming an adherent to the most recent philosophy you've read. This is not necessarly a bad thing unless you reach that point and stop thinking. That's where your cookie-cutter mentality arises.
You make the words go together more better than me.

I find it especially funny that people who are so fiercely individualistic follow the words of a dead woman like sheep follow shepherds.

Those who can't come up with their own ideals receive no respect from me, and rightly so.

Individualism does not mean "being different for the sake of being different". It is a question of motives, not actions.

Furthermore, complete agreement with another does not mean that one has substituted someone else's judgment for his own.

Or what about enforcing or crafting laws that don't allow corporations to set up headquarters outside the US, thereby avoiding taxes?

How about changing the tax structure to encourage corporations to keep their headquarters in the US? (Fair Tax law.)

Yay Omaha:rolleyes: This is why I got in so many arguments in school, people ignoring that the people they are electing are screwing them economicaly.:headbang:

WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!

WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!

Comunist

Comunist
Silly capitalists, correct spelling is for commies! :p

And I'd like to second the sentiment of Sel Appa,
WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!

Silly capitalists, correct spelling is for commies! :p

And I'd like to second the sentiment of Sel Appa,
WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!

OOPS! You can see what the Capatilist educational system did for my spellin. :p

Individualism does not mean "being different for the sake of being different". It is a question of motives, not actions.

Furthermore, complete agreement with another does not mean that one has substituted someone else's judgment for his own.

You are correct, it is not being different for the sake of being different. It is, however, in Toqueville's words, a mistake in judgment.

Toqueville would say that Rand is not a bald egoist; a bald egoist is little better than a slave to his passions, and Rand would never advocate that kind of slavery. But he would say that Rand makes a very severe mistake in her reasoning, and as a result she falls into an individualistic mentality that is on the whole detrimental to society.

In simplest terms, the idea that society can be defined as an aggregate of individuals is in Toqueville's mind absurd. A baker needs a farmer to make the crops he uses to cook with, or no amount of individualism will feed him and those he bakes for. A farmer needs a steelworker, or no amount of individualism will plow his fields. A steelworker needs a coal miner, or no amount of individualism will heat the iron. Everyone needs everyone else to pay taxes to the government, and everyone needs a government to ensure that contracts are upheld, taxes are collected, roads are maintained. In short, in any true society, especially a capitalist one with its division of labor and need for contracts, is one that where each person's success depends upon the success of the integrated whole of society. To suggest that any one man is therefore completely responsible for his own success or failure is simply ludicrous.

Unfortunately, because of the mistaken belief in individualism, Toqueville believed, we come to assume just that ludicrous notion. We do so because unlike the older aristocratic tradition, it's much harder to see the wheels of society working in a democratic society where everyone is more or less equal (by this I refer to the equality of personhood, as opposed to the inherent inequalities of an aristocratic system). In a feudal order, I can easily tell that I'm part of the larger machine of society because my place in society is clearly defined, as is the role of other people around me and prescribed notions of acceptable interaction between us. In a democratic order, however, it is much less clear how I get into any particular social position, less clear how other people reach their position, and less clear still how we are supposed to act. Because it is unclear how society is interdependent, we might mistakenly come to the conclusion that it isn't interdependent, and that our success and failures are purely of our own making.

The obvious problem, as mentioned above, is that such reasoning is ridiculous: to maintain my own health, I need others to innoculate themselves against illness, to maintain my own wealth, I need to ensure that others can live on the jobs my job depends upon, to maintain my own political autonomy, I need to ensure that everyone else has it as well. By adopting such an individualist worldview, however, leads us not to see the social bonds that tie us in a mutually-dependent framework, and consequently, those ties fray and dissolve. Such dissolution of social bonds inevitably spells the end of a society in question as well as the economic mode of relations that defined such a society. As such, adoption of Rand's ideals seems to lead to anarchy, not capitalism. In short, Toqueville proved that Rand's means and ends were incoherent and contradictory about seventy years before she was even born. Had she bothered to study and learn from Rousseau from whom Toqueville derives his analysis instead of simply lumping him in the group of "big, bad, evil commies", she might have known that.