NationStates Jolt Archive

I’ve noticed from a few posters and thread on this forum that there seems to be an attitude that anyone who is in the executive position of a company that they don’t really earn the money that they are given and thus they should be taxed extra for it because they don’t deserve it.

I would just like to say that being an executive or a person in any management power is not an easy job. I mean if you’re a CEO of a company, you have to make a thousand decisions a day on how to run the company, anywhere from advertisement to how the workers should be treated. I mean any idiot can get a company started, it’s keeping the company afloat is the hard part.

Even at a shift manager position where my dad is, it’s a pretty hard job. My dad is basically a babysitter for his job at Philip Morris. He has to make sure everyone is doing their job, help out employees who need help, make sure that his shift meets their quota for that shift, and he’s also in charge of hiring and firing people. Trust me it’s not an easy job and I know that my dad earns every cent of his paycheck.

Now there are a few leaders who don’t deserve the millions that they get (Enron comes to mind), but that’s really just a small minority of business leaders.

I just thought I’d address this issues and see what you guys think.

I didn't know that working hard entitled you to millions and millions of dollars.

Universalization of that principle would have some interesting results.

Pay for performance. As long as they're getting paid depending on how well the company is doing, I don't really have a problem with them getting large salaries. But if the company's losing money, the stock's tanking, and employees are losing their jobs left and right, nothing pisses me off more than some incompetent, greedy CEO making a fortune while the company decays.

Of course. And also, of the 25 million business in the US, most are small businesses. Yet people who are mindlessly anticapitalist assume "business" means "huge-ass corporation" and then stereotype all businessmen as effete, greedy, amoral "elites."

It pisses me off because I know quite a few business people - I'm gonna be one myself at some point - yet we all get demonized by people wearing Che t-shirts and shouting archaic Marxist bullcrap.

It's like rap. People look at rap artists and go, "Fuck! That's easy, anyone could do that!" but I guess such people just don't CHOOSE to go out and "easily" make millions with a rap album. Same with being a manager or whathaveyou. It's so easy, but I guess everyone would rather not "easily" do it...

It's easy, very easy, to demonize people with more wealth or success. Especially if your boss is an asshole. It's easy to extrapolate your boss into "all bosses."

I didn't know that working hard entitled you to millions and millions of dollars.

Universalization of that principle would have some interesting results.

I would like to see you in charge of a multi-million dollar company and not let it sink faster than the Titanic.

I would like to see you in charge of a multi-million dollar company

I'd sooner have sex with Ann Coulter.

But while we're speaking of other people's failures, I would like to see you actually respond to what I say for once.

I'd sooner have sex with Ann Coulter.

But while we're speaking of other people's failures, I would like to see you actually respond to what I say for once.

Simply working hard is not what earns you millions and millions of dollars. What earns you millions and millions of dollars is the plain and simple fact that you own and manage a company that sells a product that people really like, buy like crazy and thus giving their money to the company. After their initials success, the company can either continue the product line and come out with an improvement of the same product which will also sell by the millions, or it can try something different and fail. Or, it can sell the improved product and a new one at the same time, and both of them will be a success. People in the executive position are the one who makes these decision, and when they make the right decision, they are rewarded, if they do not, then they are not.

If they do not turn over a profit, then they'll have the lay off some workers and cut back etc.

That is pretty much the economics behind it.

I would like to see you in charge of a multi-million dollar company and not let it sink faster than the Titanic.

He does have a point though. While I certainly believe management should be paid more than labor because the necessary skills and amount of dedication are rarer, no one needs to be pulling down the salaries some of those guys do. That money would be much better served being put back into the company, possibly avoiding layoffs and other cutbacks or just to invest.

Simply working hard is not what earns you millions and millions of dollars.

It's not what GETS you millions and millions of dollars, no. I'm aware of that. Indeed, that was part of my point.

Of course, your OP explicitly related "hard work" to deserving millions of dollars... repeatedly. That's what I responded to.

not an easy job.
the hard part.
a pretty hard job.
it’s not an easy job

What earns you millions and millions of dollars is the plain and simple fact that you own and manage a company that sells a product that people really like, buy like crazy and thus giving their money to the company.

And what does that have to do with desert?

People in the executive position are the one who makes these decision, and when they make the right decision, they are rewarded, if they do not, then they are not.

Well, the accountability is uncertain.

But by and large, let's say that what you say is true. Why does making the right decisions mean that you deserve obscene quantities of wealth?

But by and large, let's say that what you say is true. Why does making the right decisions mean that you deserve obscene quantities of wealth?

Because it's your company and you should be allowed to run it the way you want? The salary that every worker is paid for is agreed upon in their contracts with the company, and executives salary are regulated by how well their company is doing. If a person doesn't like his salary at one company, then he's more than welcome to leave that company and go to another. If enough people leave the company because of poor salary, then that also hurts executives because then they can't keep up their own salary because no one is churning out the product. So they can either offer higher salaries, or go bankrupt.

Because it's your company and you should be allowed to run it the way you want?

why and why?

and where did the deserving come in?

If a person doesn't like his salary at one company, then he's more than welcome to leave that company and go to another. If enough people leave the company because of poor salary, then that also hurts executives because then they can't keep up their own salary because no one is churning out the product. So they can either offer higher salaries, or go bankrupt.

Yeah, because that's how it always works out.

why and why?

Clever.

why and why?

Because we live in a free capitalistic society.

Yeah, because that's how it always works out.

*shrugs* Until companies are actually starting to point guns to employees heads (in the United States BTW) and telling them to work for them or die, I stand by that statement.

Because it's your company and you should be allowed to run it the way you want?

Autocratic rulers sometimes thought similarly of "their" countries; I see little reason to give the claim of the capitalist much more legitimacy.

Private property over the means of production is, at best, a social convention whose rightful end is serving the public good - in which case it can be regulated so as to best serve that public good, whatever the opinions of the "owner."

The salary that every worker is paid for is agreed upon in their contracts with the company, and executives salary are regulated by how well their company is doing.

And by the power and influence they possess.

If a person doesn't like his salary at one company, then he's more than welcome to leave that company and go to another. If enough people leave the company because of poor salary, then that also hurts executives because then they can't keep up their own salary because no one is churning out the product. So they can either offer higher salaries, or go bankrupt.

I know how the competitive labor market is supposed to work; I'm not particularly interested in arguing about it now.

My question focused on DESERT. By what right does the executive DESERVE the obscene quantity of wealth he or she attains? Hard work is, you said, not a sufficient criterion - so what is?

It's like rap. People look at rap artists and go, "Fuck! That's easy, anyone could do that!" but I guess such people just don't CHOOSE to go out and "easily" make millions with a rap album. Same with being a manager or whathaveyou. It's so easy, but I guess everyone would rather not "easily" do it...

http://x98.xanga.com/6fab63164243049164732/b33033191.jpg

Modern art, on the other hand...

http://x98.xanga.com/6fab63164243049164732/b33033191.jpg

Modern art, on the other hand...

Now, if that were a painting of the BSOD, that person would deserve every penny.

Because we live in a free capitalistic society.

The fact of legal ownership and the sovereignty implicit in moral ownership are two vastly different things.

Now, if that were a painting of the BSOD, that person would deserve every penny.
Why? It came free with every computer sold?

Why? It came free with every computer sold?

That's the beauty of it.

Autocratic rulers sometimes thought similarly of "their" countries; I see little reason to give the claim of the capitalist much more legitimacy.

I'm just going to go ahead and say that I am a free market person. I believe that if Gov. Co. would have less to do with the private sector, and let economics rule, then it'll be better.


Private property over the means of production is, at best, a social convention whose rightful end is serving the public good - in which case it can be regulated so as to best serve that public good, whatever the opinions of the "owner."

Yea, but I doubt people go into business for the 'public good', they go into business because they want one thing, care to guess what it is?

And by the power and influence they possess.

Yea, but the person can refuse the salary that he is offered by the company, he doesn't have a job, but the company has one less employee, and even though one less employee seems small, it can effect how well the company does. I refer you to the "butterfly effect".

My question focused on DESERT. By what right does the executive DESERVE the obscene quantity of wealth he or she attains? Hard work is, you said, not a sufficient criterion - so what is?

I've already told you, they own the company, they run the company, they set the salary that everyone else gets, they sell the product, they rake in the profit, and they make decisions that raise the company some more or sink it.

The execs. must keep the company afloat not only for monetary gains, but also because the workers depends on the company staying afloat because of their job.

*shrugs* Until companies are actually starting to point guns to employees heads (in the United States BTW) and telling them to work for them or die, I stand by that statement.

Then you lack perspective and perhaps empathy.

I believe that if Gov. Co. would have less to do with the private sector, and let economics rule, then it'll be better.

Once again, that always works out.

My question focused on DESERT. By what right does the executive DESERVE the obscene quantity of wealth he or she attains? Hard work is, you said, not a sufficient criterion - so what is?

i'm wondering if we might be seeing a rather stunted version of deserts, where the mere facts of a social system existing wholly determine who 'deserves' what, without reference to a larger theory of justice or whatever

If they do not turn over a profit, then they'll have the lay off some workers and cut back etc.
Lay off industrious workers not because of their work but because the CEO's managerial decisions have caused the company to make a loss, yet the CEO still draws down an enormous obscene salary and gets rewarded with a bonus.
They make the mistake, but it seems rarely do they suffer from it.
Where's the logic and justice in that?

Lay off industrious workers not because of their work but because the CEO's managerial decisions have caused the company to make a loss, yet the CEO still draws down an enormous obscene salary and gets rewarded with a bonus.
They make the mistake, but it seems rarely do they suffer from it.
Where's the logic and justice in that?

That's life, and while it isn't fair, not much you can do unless you live in a communism society, but I'm going ahead to tell you right now that things won't be any better.

I believe that if Gov. Co. would have less to do with the private sector, and let economics rule, then it'll be better.

That is not an argument from right or desert.

Yea, but I doubt people go into business for the 'public good', they go into business because they want one thing, care to guess what it is?

So? What does that have to do with what I said?

Yea, but the person can refuse the salary that he is offered by the company, he doesn't have a job, but the company has one less employee, and even though one less employee seems small, it can effect how well the company does. I refer you to the "butterfly effect".

I was talking specifically about executive pay - questioning the degree to which salary is based purely on performance.

I've already told you, they own the company,

Actually, plenty of executives do not, in fact, own the company.

they run the company, they set the salary that everyone else gets, they sell the product, they rake in the profit, and they make decisions that raise the company some more or sink it.

So they do a lot of things.

What's the moral significance of that? It seems to just be a return to your older "hard work" argument - which you already rejected.

I’ve noticed from a few posters and thread on this forum that there seems to be an attitude that anyone who is in the executive position of a company that they don’t really earn the money that they are given and thus they should be taxed extra for it because they don’t deserve it.

I would just like to say that being an executive or a person in any management power is not an easy job. I mean if you’re a CEO of a company, you have to make a thousand decisions a day on how to run the company, anywhere from advertisement to how the workers should be treated. I mean any idiot can get a company started, it’s keeping the company afloat is the hard part.

Even at a shift manager position where my dad is, it’s a pretty hard job. My dad is basically a babysitter for his job at Philip Morris. He has to make sure everyone is doing their job, help out employees who need help, make sure that his shift meets their quota for that shift, and he’s also in charge of hiring and firing people. Trust me it’s not an easy job and I know that my dad earns every cent of his paycheck.

Now there are a few leaders who don’t deserve the millions that they get (Enron comes to mind), but that’s really just a small minority of business leaders.

I just thought I’d address this issues and see what you guys think.


Working hard entitles you to everything you earn.

Do CEO's really earn millions of dollars? Do they deserve bonuses that are often more than the entire salaries of their workers? I don't think so, and there are a number of reasons.

1) The number of financial scandals. These people are already so much wealthier than the people who work for them... and they have to steal from them, too?

2) Ethics. If I live on a planet where people are starving, and I make enough money to buy 14 houses and a jetliner - every year - then that's more than just tragic; it's murder.

3) I run a company with another person. We put a lot of time and effort into our company, and I know that there is no conceivable way I could ever justify taking so much money out of the company for my own salary. It would be wasteful, disrespectful to the other people who put in their time, and arrogant. Not to mention pointless - does anybody really NEED a million dollars a year? Honestly? I mean seriously, honestly? In this culture of greed, we're taught that millions of dollars is success. I don't think anybody can seriously argue that that isn't greed, pure and simple.

That's life, and while it isn't fair, not much you can do unless you live in a communism society, but I'm going ahead to tell you right now that things won't be any better.
Now your not making any sense. On the one hand you say that CEO's deserve their salary because of their hard work, but when they screw up they aren't accountable?

Also, no one here is advocating communism or even suggesting it would be better... in this thread... yet.

Also, you're a defeatist, and that's sad.

What's the moral significance of that? It seems to just be a return to your older "hard work" argument - which you already rejected.

There is no moral significance in the whole thing, but hey is it really the CEOs or the Execs. fault? I mean people still buy Nike sneakers, people still buy companies that employee illegal aliens, and sweat shop, and who moved their production line to China, as long as we continue to support these companies, and as long as they are able to turn over a profit, they'll keep on doing it.

Speaking more generally, what, exactly, is the connection between the "market value" of a person's labor and the degree of compensation, if any, they DESERVE for that labor?

Is there one at all?

Edit: At best, I think, a practical argument could be made from incentives - "This person should be paid this obscene salary because it maximizes economic efficiency."

But it would be very difficult to argue that that person actually deserves the money.

Now your not making any sense. On the one hand you say that CEO's deserve their salary because of their hard work, but when they screw up they aren't accountable?

They are accountable to the shareholders who buy their stocks.


Also, you're a defeatist, and that's sad.

Nah, I'm a realist.

There is no moral significance in the whole thing,

So, then, CEOs don't really deserve their wealth?

as long as we continue to support these companies, and as long as they are able to turn over a profit, they'll keep on doing it.

To me, this has always seemed to be an incredibly stupid argument.

"It's not my fault that I'm engaging in horrendously immoral activities - after all, other people are paying me to do it!"

I've already told you, they own the company, they run the company, they set the salary that everyone else gets, they sell the product, they rake in the profit, and they make decisions that raise the company some more or sink it.

The execs. must keep the company afloat not only for monetary gains, but also because the workers depends on the company staying afloat because of their job.

I believe you misunderstand the question. It is not if a CEO can decide that he should get a lot of money for his work, nor if he works hard or not.

It is whether if it is morally right for him to have a salary which is a few dozen or even a few hundred times that of his workers.

So, then, CEOs don't really deserve their wealth?

Well the general consensus of the market and stock exchange seems to think that they do.


To me, this has always seemed to be an incredibly stupid argument.

"It's not my fault that I'm engaging in horrendously immoral activities - after all, other people are paying me to do it!"

Eh, as long as it gets them money. People in general are selfish greedy bastards, and when put in a power where they can fulfill both of the selfish and greedy needs, then they will fulfill both, by whatever means.

I believe you misunderstand the question. It is not if a CEO can decide that he should get a lot of money for his work, nor if he works hard or not.

It is whether if it is morally right for him to have a salary which is a few dozen or even a few hundred times that of his workers.

I'm not arguing from a moral point of view, moral doesn't have anything to do with it, it's basically an economic question.

That's life, and while it isn't fair, not much you can do unless you live in a communism society, but I'm going ahead to tell you right now that things won't be any better.
That's a lot different to what you were arguing before.
You started by saying they deserved their obscene salaries. Now it's reduced to 'Life isn't fair' and 'Communism would be worse'.
Mind telling me where I mentioned Communism?

Here's something interesting:
http://www.faireconomy.org/images/EEchartCEOaverageRatio%20copy.gif
Like to explain why a CEO 'hardwork' is now worth 400+ times the average worker's income, whereas just 15 years previously it was worth 100?

Are they 4 times as productive, 4 times as profitable, 4 times as hardworking, 4 times better at decision-making as they were 15 years ago?

If a domestic worker making $8.00 an hour works as hard as the richest CEO, does she deserve as much money as he does?

If not, why not?

That's a lot different to what you were arguing before.
You started by saying they deserved their obscene salaries. Now it's reduced to 'Life isn't fair' and 'Communism would be worse'.
Mind telling me where I mentioned Communism?

Here's something interesting:
http://www.faireconomy.org/images/EEchartCEOaverageRatio%20copy.gif
Like to explain why a CEO 'hardwork' is now worth 400+ times the average worker's income, whereas just 15 years previously it was worth 100?

Are they 4 times as productive, 4 times as profitable, 4 times as hardworking, 4 times better at decision-making as they were 15 years ago?

More and more people are able to afford their products than their was 15 years ago.

If a domestic worker making $8.00 an hour works as hard as the richest CEO, does she deserve as much money as he does?

If not, why not?

If the contract between the domestic worker and his employer states that the person is to make $8.00 an hour, then the person is to make $8.00 an hour.

There is no moral significance in the whole thing, but hey is it really the CEOs or the Execs. fault? I mean people still buy Nike sneakers, people still buy companies that employee illegal aliens, and sweat shop, and who moved their production line to China, as long as we continue to support these companies, and as long as they are able to turn over a profit, they'll keep on doing it.

i called it (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12459023&postcount=24)

Hard work is, you said, not a sufficient criterion - so what is?

As my lecturers used to tell me, work smart, not hard. Besides, if hard work was the only criteria for pay scales, nobody would be doctors, scientists, or anything that involved less grunt work and more smarts.

A better example would be like that of a ship. A company in most cases, is a ship, the CEO is the captain. Ultimately, the captain say's where the ship goes, and usually draws a somewhat higher pay scale than say, the cook in the galley.

Half the reason why they draw these pay scales is because as decision makers, ultimately, the health of the company rests on them.

Nah, I'm a realist.

No you're not. You're an example of the all too common practice of hiding pessimism within "realism".

A realist would never say ,"That's life, and while it isn't fair, not much you can do." A realist would understand that there is plenty you can do and could point to historical events to show that actions have been undertaken in the past to improve the relative fairness and that those actions can meet with success.

No you're not. You're an example of the all too common practice of hiding pessimism within "realism".

A realist would never say ,"That's life, and while it isn't fair, not much you can do." A realist would understand that there is plenty you can do and could point to historical events to show that things have been done to improve the relative fairness of life in the past and that they have been successful.

Yea, but I also realize that it's these corporations which are run by the execs. help our economy, and keep our economy pretty damn good and I don't know about you but I am benefiting from our economy and I would like to continue benefiting from it.

Well the general consensus of the market and stock exchange seems to think that they do.

The "general consensus of the market and the stock exchange" has jack shit to do with desert.

Eh, as long as it gets them money.

Then it IS their fault.

People in general are selfish greedy bastards,

Bullshit.

People pushed into certain economic roles under certain economic systems act very selfishly in limited contexts.

and when put in a power where they can fulfill both of the selfish and greedy needs, then they will fulfill both, by whatever means.

That seems depraved to me - not at all in accordance with human nature.

I'm not arguing from a moral point of view

Then where does desert come in?

A better example would be like that of a ship. A company in most cases, is a ship, the CEO is the captain. Ultimately, the captain say's where the ship goes, and usually draws a somewhat higher pay scale than say, the cook in the galley.

But we are not talking about a mere scaledifference here - we are talking about the captain getting the same pay as 400 cooks put together.

The "general consensus of the market and the stock exchange" has jack shit to do with desert.



Then it IS their fault.



Bullshit.

People pushed into certain economic roles under certain economic systems act very selfishly in limited contexts.



That seems depraved to me - not at all in accordance with human nature.



Then where does desert come in?

Ok, what the hell do you mean by desert?

More and more people are able to afford their products than their was 15 years ago.
That didn't answer the question.
But then, I've noticed you've manage to get through 3 pages now of avoiding answering all questions.
Well done sir. I salute you on your knavish obliqueness.

If the contract between the domestic worker and his employer states that the person is to make $8.00 an hour, then the person is to make $8.00 an hour.

"What is, is right." And thus all morality is repealed.

Of course, the fun part is that now we can tax the CEOs as much as we want, or even lynch them in the streets, and any moral objection you might have is blatantly hypocritical. ;)

Ok, what the hell do you mean by desert?

"To be worthy of; merit" - The American Heritage Dictionary

Edit: That's the verb, not the noun.

"The state or fact of deserving reward or punishment" - American Heritage Dictionary again.

"What is, is right." And thus all morality is repealed.

Of course, the fun part is that now we can tax the CEOs as much as we want, or even lynch them in the streets, and any moral objection you might have is blatantly hypocritical. ;)

Yea, but tax the CEO's too much and they'll probably all move down to Mexico, and the middle and lower classes taxes will go up, and our economy will tank.

That didn't answer the question.
But then, I've noticed you've manage to get through 3 pages now of avoiding answering all questions.
Well done sir. I salute you on your knavish obliqueness.

15 years ago, about 30% of the people were able to afford Product A.

However, with the improvement of the economy, and basically standard of living all across the board has allowed 80% of the people to afford product A. Which means that the company rakes in more profit, and thus CEOs get more money.

"To be worthy of; merit" - The American Heritage Dictionary

Edit: That's the verb, not the noun.

"The state or fact of deserving reward or punishment" - American Heritage Dictionary again.

They are the captain of the company, and the job of keeping the company on course and afloat rest on their shoulders.

If they do very well, they deserve a lot of money, since they impact a lot of people with their success or failure.

Sadly, though the converse is true, it is not put into practice, and shysters and failures are able to take in millions.

They are the captain of the company, and the job of keeping the company on course and afloat rest on their shoulders.

What is it about this "job" that entitles them to lots of money?

I'm not arguing from a moral point of view, moral doesn't have anything to do with it, it's basically an economic question.

Understand that not everyone's morality is so selective.

I also realize that it's these corporations which are run by the execs. help our economy, and keep our economy pretty damn good and I don't know about you but I am benefiting from our economy and I would like to continue benefiting from it.
I never said that corporations were bad. I said that perhaps CEOs and other executives do not need to be pulling down such huge salaries compared to labor and even management, and that perhaps every now and then they should take the fall.
It hurts the company when so much profit is expended on executive salaries, and as talented as some of those men are, recovering from the loss of a CEO is much easier on the economy and the greater good in general than recovering from the loss of 10,000 jobs.

I am a capitalist through and though. That doesn't mean I have to be amoral.

What is it about this "job" that entitles them to lots of money?

We're going in loops now, because they probably know more about economics than the workers, they know how the market and stocks work, they know what they must do to keep the company on course and afloat, and they know what will happen if they make the wrong choice.

15 years ago, about 30% of the people were able to afford Product A.

However, with the improvement of the economy, and basically standard of living all across the board has allowed 80% of the people to afford product A. Which means that the company rakes in more profit, and thus CEOs get more money.

But that's not what happened in reality...

Understand that not everyone's morality is so selective.

Did I ever say that I support companies that have amoral activities? I vote with my wallet.

But we are not talking about a mere scaledifference here - we are talking about the captain getting the same pay as 400 cooks put together.

Not really. You have to consider the worth of the ship and the general importance of the ship. For example, a tug boat captain probably won't draw very much more compared to his crew. However, a captain of a megafreighter would probably draw much more than some of his crew.

Few people will argue about pay over performance. If I hear about a guy who received a truckload of money and it is said he took a company big or brought one back from death, I would say he earned it.

However, A guy who warmed a seat and received 400 million as in Exxons case? My 5 year old daughter could have sat in the same chair and seen the same profits.

What about the ex-ceo of HomeDepot? Under his 7 years, the stock never increased in value. Lowes who was nothing, is now the supreme competitor that they can no longer defeat.

He was let go and the reason failure to meet ALL objectives

I will say it again failure to meet ALL objectives

His reward was $210 million. He also had another $130 million from the 7 years.

Let's hear you justify that.

We're going in loops now,

Yes, consistent refusal to actually address a question can cause that problem.

because they probably know more about economics than the workers, they know how the market and stocks work, they know what they must do to keep the company on course and afloat, and they know what will happen if they make the wrong choice.

All that makes them more suited for the job than the workers.

Why does it entitle them to more MONEY? Is knowledge in and of itself really worthy of reward?

Did I ever say that I support companies that have amoral activities? I vote with my wallet.

But then why are you here trying to justify the actions of amoral CEOs?

We're going in loops now, because they probably know more about economics than the workers, they know how the market and stocks work, they know what they must do to keep the company on course and afloat, and they know what will happen if they make the wrong choice.

none of which leads to entitlement.

perhaps it will help to think of a situation where you think somebody doesn't deserve what they have. a really skilled and successful mugger, for example. the fact that they know more about mugging people and what it takes to do it effectively, etc, has fuck-all to do with deserving the mugged loot.

But then why are you here trying to justify the actions of amoral CEOs?

I'm not justifying it, just stating facts of why they are able to get away with it.

We're going in loops now, because they probably know more about economics than the workers,


Actually many do not. They are a face to the company and tend to be BS artists for the investors. Smooth talking is the job.


they know how the market and stocks work,

Actually they staff and or brokers handle that.


they know what they must do to keep the company on course and afloat,


Actually many do not. They tend to have people that research it for them.

and they know what will happen if they make the wrong choice.

They get a great golden parachute for their failure.

All that makes them more suited for the job than the workers.

Why does it entitle them to more MONEY? Is knowledge in and of itself really worthy of reward?

Because the company and shareholders think that they are worth that much.

Few people will argue about pay over performance. If I hear about a guy who received a truckload of money and it is said he took a company big or brought one back from death, I would say he earned it.

However, A guy who warmed a seat and received 400 million as in Exxons case? My 5 year old daughter could have sat in the same chair and seen the same profits.

What about the ex-ceo of HomeDepot? Under his 7 years, the stock never increased in value. Lowes who was nothing, is now the supreme competitor that they can no longer defeat.

He was let go and the reason failure to meet ALL objectives

I will say it again failure to meet ALL objectives

His reward was $210 million. He also had another $130 million from the 7 years.

Let's hear you justify that.

Eh, blame the shareholders, they thought he was worth $210 millions and $130 millions.

Because the company and shareholders think that they are worth that much.

So desert is a matter of whim?

A really rich person gives a billion dollars to a cactus. Does the cactus deserve the money?

Understand that not everyone's morality is so selective.

Two casestudies from the Netherlands:

1. The director of the "heart foundation" (a charity organisation for people with heart diseases with its budget mainly generated from donations) was revealed to pay himself a significant salary - or as he put it: the salary he would earn in a business based on expertise.

People stopped donating.

2. AHOLD is a multinational company, in the Netherlands primarily known from the supermarket chain "Albert Heijn". After a massive fraud within the company was revealed it contracted Moberg as director, to get it back on track.
After hearing how much money the man would receive in salary (several times that of the prime minister) a significant number of people started boycotting the supermarket.

So desert is a matter of whim?

A really rich person gives a billion dollars to a cactus. Does the cactus deserve the money?

No, but we're talking about a cactus, not a human being who has a job of running the company and keeping it afloat while pleasing the shareholders, workers, the markets, and the other execs.

Eh, blame the shareholders, they thought he was worth $210 millions and $130 millions.

Actually no. The shareholders tend to not have a say in the executive pay packages. I own quite a few stocks from a few industries and I have never seen anything to vote on their pay packages.

There have been votes for more stock but that is not what is going on in the examples I mentioned.

Actually no. The shareholders tend to not have a say in the executive pay packages. I own quite a few stocks from a few industries and I have never seen anything to vote on their pay packages.

There have been votes for more stock but that is not what is going on in the examples I mentioned.

Like I said in the OP, there are a few execs. who do not deserve what they are paid (I cited those who ran Enron into the ground) but they are a minority.

Just an edit.

No, but we're talking about a cactus, not a human being who has a job of running the company and keeping it afloat while pleasing the other execs and large investors.

No, but we're talking about a cactus, not a human being who has a job of running the company and keeping it afloat while pleasing the shareholders, workers, the markets, and the other execs.

Now we ARE going in circles.

:rolleyes:

Two casestudies from the Netherlands:

1. The director of the "heart foundation" (a charity organisation for people with heart diseases with its budget mainly generated from donations) was revealed to pay himself a significant salary - or as he put it: the salary he would earn in a business based on expertise.

People stopped donating.

2. AHOLD is a multinational company, in the Netherlands primarily known from the supermarket chain "Albert Heijn". After a massive fraud within the company was revealed it contracted Moberg as director, to get it back on track.
After hearing how much money the man would receive in salary (several times that of the prime minister) a significant number of people started boycotting the supermarket.
That makes me happy.:)

Though it is sad about the heart foundation losing money, and I bet some people are going to lose their jobs who work at AHOLD. :(

Just an edit.

Yea, and I guess there's no reason to have unions if the execs doesn't have to please the workers... :rolleyes:

Like I said in the OP, there are a few execs. who do not deserve what they are paid (I cited those who ran Enron into the ground) but they are a minority.

It happens more then you think. Golden parachutes are only abused now, they should be curtailed.

You earn your pay making the tough choices and not from being a failure.

Now we ARE going in circles.

:rolleyes:

Yep, you just won't accept the answers.

It happens more then you think. Golden parachutes are only abused now, they should be curtailed.

You earn your pay making the tough choices and not from being a failure.

If they are to be curtailed, then people should be made aware of their abuse and vote with their wallet, leave Gov. Co. out of it.

Yea, and I guess there's no reason to have unions if the execs doesn't have to please the workers... :rolleyes:

Guess you missed all the downsizing/rightsizing.

Guess you missed the bit where companies stocks tend to go up with layoffs.

Guess you missed all the offshoring of jobs. They did it to please the workers right? :rolleyes:

Execs can give a rats ass about the work force.

Yep, you just won't accept the answers.

No... you just won't answer the fucking question.

You have given two substantive standards for "desert" - one, hard work, and two, consensual transfer from a rightful owner (for the moment I'll ignore the issue of "rightful owner.")

Both of those standards you have rejected when challenged.

If they are to be curtailed, then people should be made aware of their abuse and vote with their wallet, leave Gov. Co. out of it.

The creation of the SEC was because of executives actions.

If it was left to the company, guys like Ebberts would never see prison.

Guess you missed all the downsizing/rightsizing.

Because they lost money, and they need to keep the company afloat.


Guess you missed the bit where companies stocks tend to go up with layoffs.

Because the company starts to turn a profit again.


Guess you missed all the offshoring of jobs. They did it to please the workers right? :rolleyes:

Not the American workers, but the Chinese and Indian workers seem to be happy about it.

Because they lost money, and they need to keep the company afloat.

Because the company starts to turn a profit again.

Not the American workers, but the Chinese and Indian workers seem to be happy about it.

Ah so you admit they don't really go about trying to please the work force.

No... you just won't answer the fucking question.

You have given two substantive standards for "desert" - one, hard work, and two, consensual transfer from a rightful owner (for the moment I'll ignore the issue of "rightful owner.")

Both of those standards you have rejected when challenged.

No you won't accept the answers because you're trying to get me to say "Ok so they don't deserve it".

How are we to determine who deserves their salary, are you going to determine that, or are we going to make a special agency?

Face the fact, the salary of CEOs and other execs are based on the company performances, the shareholders, and in some cases the manipulation of the system.

Ah so you admit they don't really go about trying to please the work force.

*shrugs* I never said they try to please them all the time. They really just please the shareholders and execs first, and the workers get the left over.

No you won't accept the answers because you're trying to get me to say "Ok so they don't deserve it".

Why, yes, I am. Obviously. That has been my entire line of argument.

But you still have not actually provided a reason they DO deserve it that you're willing to stand by.

How are we to determine who deserves their salary, are you going to determine that, or are we going to make a special agency?

We should choose an economic system that takes into account a notion of desert that amounts to more than "whatever the market decides."

Face the fact, the salary of CEOs and other execs are based on the company performances, the shareholders, and in some cases the manipulation of the system.

Yeah, so?

*shrugs* I never said they try to please them all the time. They really just please the shareholders and execs first, and the workers get the left over.

Actually you did but you corrected it.

And they try to please the large shareholders and the other execs.

They can give a shit about little shareholders.

Well that is of course if there is a proxy fight and they don't have enough of the large shareholders in their camp. Then they are your best friend until the vote is over.

We should choose an economic system that takes into account a notion of desert that amounts to more than "whatever the market decides."

Yea, but as we've seen in the past, Socialistic or communistic society rarely works.

Yea, but as we've seen in the past, Socialistic or communistic society rarely works.

http://codor.blogs.com/intro/images/redherring.jpg

http://codor.blogs.com/intro/images/redherring.jpg

That was what he was getting at though.

so about executives deserving their monstrous wads of cash - figured out what you mean by 'deserve' yet?

I’ve noticed from a few posters and thread on this forum that there seems to be an attitude that anyone who is in the executive position of a company that they don’t really earn the money that they are given and thus they should be taxed extra for it because they don’t deserve it.
.

I think that who earns more money should be taxed more (that is, progressive income tax).
Not because the CEO etc don't deserve their wages; just because they benefit from living in a society that comprises also poor people - since they are more capable of monetary contribution, they should give to the society more money than poor people should. I call it solidarity.

If a person doesn't like solidarity, well, he is excused OUT of the society. That is, no police, no education, no healthcare, no public infrastructures, no military to defend him, etc, etc.

If a person doesn't like solidarity, well, he is excused OUT of the society. That is, no police, no education, no healthcare, no public infrastructures, no military to defend him, etc, etc.

Not throwing my hat in with Wilgrove, as I disagree with his assessment of things, but...how would this work?

If we were being invaded, what would the military do? "Okay, any of you invaders who comes near any of our citizens is going to be shot. Except for Eric, you can kill him. Fuck that guy."

Because...I would laugh. Really. Fuck that guy (especially if he's a CEO).

I think that who earns more money should be taxed more (that is, progressive income tax).
Not because the CEO etc don't deserve their wages; just because they benefit from living in a society that comprises also poor people - since they are more capable of monetary contribution, they should give to the society more money than poor people should. I call it solidarity.

If a person doesn't like solidarity, well, he is excused OUT of the society. That is, no police, no education, no healthcare, no public infrastructures, no military to defend him, etc, etc.

Which is being done already the 1% Rich also pays the highest tax.

Not throwing my hat in with Wilgrove, as I disagree with his assessment of things, but...how would this work?

If we were being invaded, what would the military do? "Okay, any of you invaders who comes near any of our citizens is going to be shot. Except for Eric, you can kill him. Fuck that guy."

Because...I would laugh. Really. Fuck that guy (especially if he's a CEO).

Nah, they would just send the guys who don't pay their taxes to the front line as machine gun fodder.

That was what he was getting at though.
No I wasn't.
But don't let little things like facts and reality get in the way of your generalisations and general 'pulling things from out your butt and calling it a rose' that you've been doing on this thread thus far.

Which is being done already the 1% Rich also pays the highest tax.
When it's not being carted off to they Cayman Islands, that is.

Face the fact, the salary of CEOs and other execs are based on the company performances, the shareholders, and in some cases the manipulation of the system.In recent years, that has decidedly not been the case. CEO packages--especially the more outrageous examples--have been set based not on performance or shareholder opinion, but based on what the board feels is proper. The problem is that the board is often close friends with and in some cases appointed by that same CEO. It starts to resemble a con game before long, especially when top execs continue to get performance bonuses even when their companies go into the shitter.

Pay for performance. As long as they're getting paid depending on how well the company is doing, I don't really have a problem with them getting large salaries. But if the company's losing money, the stock's tanking, and employees are losing their jobs left and right, nothing pisses me off more than some incompetent, greedy CEO making a fortune while the company decays.
That's a position that needs some qualification. What about a company that brings in a CEO to stop the bleeding? Or just slow it down? I'm sure Ford would love to see a CEO that can reduce their unprofitability, while developing a plan to return to the black in future years.

And sometimes, big layoffs and plant closings are a big part of that plan.

In recent years, that has decidedly not been the case. CEO packages--especially the more outrageous examples--have been set based not on performance or shareholder opinion, but based on what the board feels is proper. The problem is that the board is often close friends with and in some cases appointed by that same CEO. It starts to resemble a con game before long, especially when top execs continue to get performance bonuses even when their companies go into the shitter.

Other than just the envy you feel at not making those big bucks, what difference does it make what a CEO gets paid? Regardless of how it is set, isn't a CEO's salary package a private matter between him and company?

I gotta admit that seeing a CEO accept a 'performance' bonus when a good company turns into a penny stock makes a good topic for a rant, but after all, that's what the company decided to offer and that's what he decided to accept. One assumes that the compensation committee saw some value in the guy at some point.

My question focused on DESERT. By what right does the executive DESERVE the obscene quantity of wealth he or she attains? Hard work is, you said, not a sufficient criterion - so what is?

This is an easy question to answer. A CEO can make decisions that can cost or make a company millions or billions of dollars. The people that have the ability to make the decisions that benefit ands profit the company consistently are very very few. Since almost every company wants and needs a sucessful CEO and the number of good CEOs are few, thier value is great. Simple Economics. Has nothing to do with deserve, it has to do with having an ability that your common man does not and the market attaching value to that ability.

But it would be very difficult to argue that that person actually deserves the money.

It would be equally interesting to hear you explain why someone doesnt deserve what they make. Is your judgement on what someone elses value is what society should go by?

"It's not my fault that I'm engaging in horrendously immoral activities - after all, other people are paying me to do it!"

Where in a nation of 10s of millions of companies and CEOs large and small, is all this immoral corporate behavior that your seeing? Are you talking about the malfesence of less then .05 of 1% of all businesses doing something wrong? Your painting corporations with a rather broad paintbrush arnt you? I fail to see the problem here that justifys your villification of capitalism and corperate activities. Im in a corporation too. It consists of five of us. We build homes for people to live in. We have board meetings elect directors, pay taxes do all the things corporations do. We pay our CEO. He does a good job and everyone is happy. Customers are happy with our products and buy them. Where is the evil in the system? If we were fortunate enough to scale our business up 100x or 1000x would we suddenly just become evil and immoral because we are in a large corperation?

If a domestic worker making $8.00 an hour works as hard as the richest CEO, does she deserve as much money as he does?

If not, why not?

No because in the free market economy skill is rewarded not just hard work. A CEO has the ability to potentially generate thousands of times his income in revenue for his company. A domestic worker does not.

Think of CEOs as the All Stars in sports. CEOs have a rare ability to govern in the same way a professional athlete is unique in what he does. He is also fortunate enough to have a talent that the market is willing to pay for. If you happen to be the worlds best farter, thats wonderful but not much market for it. Fortunatly for the CEOs, for whatever reason, they are blessed with the rare ability to govern, and they are compensated for it. I dont see the mystery nor the problem here.

But we are not talking about a mere scaledifference here - we are talking about the captain getting the same pay as 400 cooks put together.

400 cooks cant sink a 2 Billion dollar boat.

I mean any idiot can get a company started, it’s keeping the company afloat is the hard part.
The problem is that even if they fail, they get assloads of cash.

Even at a shift manager position where my dad is, it’s a pretty hard job. My dad is basically a babysitter for his job at Philip Morris.
Shift manager isn't a CEO.

400 cooks cant sink a 2 Billion dollar boat.
Neither can a captain, that's what the gunners are for.

Why does it entitle them to more MONEY? Is knowledge in and of itself really worthy of reward?

Absolutly. Tell you what, next time you need an operation, you put your life in the hands of your cheap doctor that isnt a real believer in knowledge and ill pay my doctor with his expensive degree.

So desert is a matter of whim?

A really rich person gives a billion dollars to a cactus. Does the cactus deserve the money?

Deserve denotes moral judgement. Since no human alive has the ability to correctly judge what somebody else deserves in terms of a lifestyle then the entire notion is absurd. Or are you simply suggesting that the donater shouldnt have the right to give his money to who or what he wants to?

Because it's your company and you should be allowed to run it the way you want?

Not in the slightest, most of these high paid CEOs work for public corporations, they do not own it, and it's not theirs. Not even Bill Gates "owns" microsoft anymore.


The salary that every worker is paid for is agreed upon in their contracts with the company, and executives salary are regulated by how well their company is doing. If a person doesn't like his salary at one company, then he's more than welcome to leave that company and go to another. If enough people leave the company because of poor salary, then that also hurts executives because then they can't keep up their own salary because no one is churning out the product. So they can either offer higher salaries, or go bankrupt.


Vastly overly simplistic.

Neither can a captain, that's what the gunners are for.

Tell that to the Captian of the Titanic or the oil tanker Valdez ;) Yet another reason we pay talent much higher then domestic work. Thier decisions greatly impact many others. One captians poor decision affected the entire ecosystem of an entire State of the US.

Tell that to the Captian of the Titanic or the Val Dez ;)
I think that's an argument for paying them less than cooks.

CEO's who get extremely large bonuses should be allowed to make a great deal of money. It takes a lot of skill, understanding, and hard work to run a company like this. I do believe that there should be some equity though. Certain companies have rules that bar a CEO from getting a bonus that is a certain percentage above that of their average employee. They do the same thing with raises. If Joe CEO wants a 5% raise then he must give that same raise to Joe Blow down in the stock room. Clearly the raise for the CEO will be much larger but it's in proportion to the raise of the average worker. This is the system at the company my father in law happens to be CEO at. It creates a greater balance and also helps to watch the bottom line as he must be more aware of the overall impact of his decisions. Then there's Exxon-Mobil etc. and their obscene profits and bonuses that really throw people for a loop. Those are the companies that get people outraged as those profits come at the detriment of Joe Blow when he fills his tank. It's all about equity so you don't have %10 of the people ruling the rest through class struggle. To all things in life there must be balance to keep things in homeostatic nature.

Tell that to the Captian of the Titanic or the oil tanker Valdez ;)

Case in point, do you think those captains deserved their salaries which were undoubtebly higher than the rest of the crew's?

I think too often people object to high salaried because they feel the CEO is making "too much" money. How does one define "too much?" Is there some arbitrary line that can be drawn to define where the salary becomes "too high?"

It's about incentive. It's about driving a company to ever greater size, profit and productivity. If a CEO's salary is at some artificial maximum then he or she has no real incentive to make the company grow, since the larger the company, the larger their workload and I don't know about you guys, but I'm not willing to take on additional work without a reasonable increase in compensation.

"Too much is when some guy has a yacht and some other guy lives in a box." Well there will always be social inequality. We can do our best to minimize it but it'll always be there. Besides, the situation isn't that simple. The CEO is an educated man or woman who worked hard in school and on the job to be qualified for the position they've reached. You can inherit money, but you can't inherit competence. At the same time the guy in the box might be an educated guy who worked hard and still ended up falling on hard times... but this is generally not the case.

Having a society where private businesses drive the economy confers the maximum benefit on the greatest number of people. Bigger companies need bigger employee pools which lower the unemployment rate. Bigger profits mean more expansion. This is a good thing. More people win this way. And what drives expansion? Incentive.

I think most of the time when people complain about how some executive makes "too much" money they're talking from a certain level of jealousy. They don't know anything about our hypothetical executive. They know nothing about his or her personality, habits, work performance or even the workload of the job and yet are ready to pass judgement based on one piece of information: The executive's income. Sounds like jealousy to me.

"It's not fair! His piece of cake is bigger than mine!"

Case in point, do you think those captains deserved their salaries which were undoubtebly higher than the rest of the crew's?

Clearly not, but then one of them died as a result of his mistake and the other lost his job. The system self-corrected.

Case in point, do you think those captains deserved their salaries which were undoubtebly higher than the rest of the crew's?

Oh my god yes. The simple fact that we can point to a handful of failures shows how effective the system actually is.Could you imagine the mayhem that would be caused if we had incompetent captians? We have thousands and thousands of captians on the seas at any given moment. The very fact that we dont have catastrophic oil spills daily means that the system is being run fairly competently by skilled and compensated Captians. Could you imagine the disaster to the planet if these ships were being run by $8 /hr domestic help?

Firstly, since I'm a realist, we have to accept the fact that life is unfair. Secondly, the fact is, we need CEO's and executives and we need to let them generate as much revenue as they can..

i have no problem with CEO's making more money than normal employees, but i do think that most of the time they earn way to much. i don't really understand this, at one point a person can live more than comfortable, why would they want to do a job wich is so stressfull and hard to earn a lot more, but obviously have less time to enjoy it.

no human alive has the ability to correctly judge what somebody else deserves

i'm afraid i'm gonna need to see your argument for that claim

Firstly, since I'm a realist, we have to accept the fact that life is unfair. Secondly, the fact is, we need CEO's and executives and we need to let them generate as much revenue as they can..
The workers are just as necessary as CEOs and executives, though.

The workers are just as necessary as CEOs and executives, though.

Indeed. Having said that, I don't support a system where you are either poor or a billionaire, like in russia. Which is why I would like certain elements of socialism to be implemented as well.

They know nothing about his or her personality, habits, work performance or even the workload of the job and yet are ready to pass judgement based on one piece of information: The executive's income.

none of those things are enough to overcome the moral importance of egalitarianism. absolutely nothing they do justifies putting them in a position of dominance over us and over society. but that is what their systemic reward is. fuck that shit.

wanna know an interesting fact about humans? we value egalitarianism highly enough that we will consistently seek to implement it even at a cost to ourselves. there is a famous experiment where you take two people and give them some amount of money to split between them. one person gets to make the split, the other gets to accept it or reject it. if accepted, each takes their part of the money. if rejected, nobody gets anything. now from a pure rational maximizer standpoint, the decider should accept any split where they get more than nothing at all. but in reality, any split much different than 50-50 gets a "fuck you!" rejection.

Indeed. Having said that, I don't support a system where you are either poor or a billionaire, like in russia. Which is why I would like certain elements of socialism to be implemented as well.
Of course. There has to be a degree of equality and well being for society (and an economy) to function.

Not in the slightest, most of these high paid CEOs work for public corporations, they do not own it, and it's not theirs. Not even Bill Gates "owns" microsoft anymore.

...the CEOs are appointed or elected by the owners. The owners call the shots.

Indeed. Having said that, I don't support a system where you are either poor or a billionaire, like in russia. Which is why I would like certain elements of socialism to be implemented as well.
Of course. There has to be a degree of equality and well being for society (and an economy) to function.

Most people here seem to be missing the point: Executives at large, publicly traded companies get their salary because of the skills they possess, not just because they work hard.

A janitor might pull more hours than a surgeon, but the surgeon gets paid a whole shitload more for less "work." Its not work that gets paid, its skills. A CEO at a huge corporation got to his position chiefly by skill. Sure, influence and connections may play a role, but they don't get you everything. If a CEO is "letting the company decay around him," chances are the board of directors will eliminate him. If they don't, then the stock holders will. Pure and simple.

A beancounter may be necessary for a company to function, but he is just that: a bean counter. Replacable. A skilled CEO, on the other hand, isn't.

Most people here seem to be missing the point: Executives at large, publicly traded companies get their salary because of the skills they possess, not just because they work hard.

So.. according to you being a CEO can require much more (based on salary say a few 100 times more) skill than being the president/prime minister of an average western country ?

Most people here seem to be missing the point: Executives at large, publicly traded companies get their salary because of the skills they possess, not just because they work hard.

so which skills in particular cause them to deserve their monstrosities of paychecks?

Seeing as most every President/Prime Minister/Etc. is already independantly wealthy, why not?

The only value of a thing is that which that thing will bring.

If I pay you 2000 for a shirt, that shirt was worth 2000 dollars. If you don't get paid at all for it and can't find anyone to sell it to, that shirt is effectively 0 dollars value.

There is no "inherent" monetary value to anything.

Seeing as most every President/Prime Minister/Etc. is already independantly wealthy, why not?

Check your facts. Most aren't. Not by a long shot.

My question however was if a CEOs job requires much more skill.

so which skills in particular cause them to deserve their monstrosities of paychecks?

Do you want an actual answer, or is that a rhetorical question? In either case, they don't deserve anything, they generally get paid for, you know, running the huge-assed corporation. Not everyone can do a James Cayne and generate 2.5 billion in profit in a year.

They pretty much do deserve it - they put a lot of time and effort into making a company a success. If the company is a success despite its products/services being crap, I blame the people who paid for them.

Most people here seem to be missing the point: Executives at large, publicly traded companies get their salary because of the skills they possess, not just because they work hard.


Really?

The ex-ceo of HomeDepot failed at all levels. Stock always lost value. A unknown unworthy competitor is now superior to them. The employee base is hostile. He was fired for failing to meet ALL objectives

He was paid 140 million during his "leadership"

His reward for failure was another 210 million.

The ex-chairmen of Exxon left with over 400 million. He didn't earn it. The situation of today even my 5 year old girl could have seen the same profits as him.

A janitor might pull more hours than a surgeon, but the surgeon gets paid a whole shitload more for less "work." Its not work that gets paid, its skills. A CEO at a huge corporation got to his position chiefly by skill. Sure, influence and connections may play a role, but they don't get you everything.


They are a HUGE factor. Ever notice that many CEOs set on other boards?

If a CEO is "letting the company decay around him," chances are the board of directors will eliminate him. If they don't, then the stock holders will. Pure and simple.


That's thing many people are arguing here. Today CEOs are rewarded for failure.

Justify the golden parachute.....


A beancounter may be necessary for a company to function, but he is just that: a bean counter. Replaceable. A skilled CEO, on the other hand, isn't.

EVERY person is replaceable. A company that can't deal with the loss of a CEO is one deserves to fail.

...the CEOs are appointed or elected by the owners. The owners call the shots.

Ehh? I own shares in companies.

I have NEVER voted on a CEO......

Indeed. Having said that, I don't support a system where you are either poor or a billionaire, like in russia. Which is why I would like certain elements of socialism to be implemented as well.

That's was basically many people are arguing(I think).

An exec makes the big money for making the big decessions. Most "sane" people realize that and are willing to accept his salary when he is good.

What most people object is the guy who is rewarded for doing nothing or worst yes being a complete screw up(ie Homedepot ceo).

There appears to be an image where the executive gets the big money simply because he has a title.

Even here you see people basically argue:
"The guy screwed up; he shouldn't get millions for doing that"
"You just don't understand what it takes to be a ceo"

That's obvious. Many people don't understand the CEO's job. They understand reward and punishment.

Do your job well; you get rewarded. Do it badly, you get punished.

For many CEO's it's do your job great or poor; you will get rewarded.`

No because in the free market economy skill is rewarded not just hard work. A CEO has the ability to potentially generate thousands of times his income in revenue for his company. A domestic worker does not.

Sure they do. It's called "patents" and "R&D" and "actually making the damned product".

They pretty much do deserve it - they put a lot of time and effort into making a company a success. If the company is a success despite its products/services being crap, I blame the people who paid for them.

What about thoses that wreck a company and make it loose it's competitive edge? Do they deserve a truckload of money when they are finally tossed.

Even in the states, when a company fails and it's assets are liquidated, the first ones to cash out are the board of directors.

What about thoses that wreck a company and make it loose it's competitive edge? Do they deserve a truckload of money when they are finally tossed.

Even in the states, when a company fails and it's assets are liquidated, the first ones to cash out are the board of directors.

Well, the Directors formed the company and would have put the original capital in, so they probably want something out of it. Directors are not quite the same as salary-paid employees, though, surely?

In either case, they don't deserve anything

then why should they get it?

They pretty much do deserve it - they put a lot of time and effort into making a company a success.

so time and effort - any guess what happens when we universalize that notion of who deserves what?

so time and effort - any guess what happens when we universalize that notion of who deserves what?

Depends how you compare the worth of physical effort and mental effort.

Depends how you compare the worth of physical effort and mental effort.

You average college professor still earns vastly less than many CEOs.

You average college professor still earns vastly less than many CEOs.

though one could stick to their guns here and say that that only means they deserve more

Well, the Directors formed the company and would have put the original capital in, so they probably want something out of it. Directors are not quite the same as salary-paid employees, though, surely?

The directors rarely "form" the company. There are the founders who sit on the board. Others bring name recognition. Others bring contacts. Some are are partnered companies.

The original capitol of a public company tends to be the large investors and many don't sit on boards.

Investing is not a guarantee for the little guy.

Board members should not be guaranteed to get money back. Especially when their decisions kill the company.

You average college professor still earns vastly less than many CEOs.

The professor chose the easier option in the sense that s/he is good at the subject and probably enjoys learning and teaching it. They get a different kind of reward. The CEO has to make an effort on a day to day basis to keep the company running.

The professor chose the easier option in the sense that s/he is good at the subject and probably enjoys learning and teaching it. They get a different kind of reward. The CEO has to make an effort on a day to day basis to keep the company running.

so a ceo that found his job fun and easy would not deserve a massive salary?

Has nothing to do with deserve

"Maybe CEOs and executives do deserve their salary" is the title of this thread, and was the subject of my post.

To say that it "has nothing to do with deserve" is to make my point for me. Thanks.

It would be equally interesting to hear you explain why someone doesnt deserve what they make.

Because they do not merit vast rewards while others just as meritorious make a pittance by comparison.

This is a basic rule of justice: equal treatment.

Where in a nation of 10s of millions of companies and CEOs large and small, is all this immoral corporate behavior that your seeing?

Corporations are legally required to behave immorally - to promote the private profit of their shareholders, within the limits of the law, at the expense of everything else, including the public good.

No because in the free market economy skill is rewarded not just hard work.

Right.

Skill is distributed rather arbitrarily - a poor immigrant from a developing country has done nothing wrong, yet nevertheless, through circumstances beyond her control, will probably lack the skills the children of upper-class families possess. What relevance does it have on desert?

Absolutly. Tell you what, next time you need an operation, you put your life in the hands of your cheap doctor that isnt a real believer in knowledge and ill pay my doctor with his expensive degree.

I fail to see what this has to do with anything.

I know a whole lot about myself; does that mean I deserve money?

Deserve denotes moral judgement.

It does indeed.

Since no human alive has the ability to correctly judge what somebody else deserves in terms of a lifestyle then the entire notion is absurd.

Then saying that CEOs and executives DO deserve their pay is absurd, right?

Why are you replying to me? Shouldn't you be replying to Wilgrove?

Or is "desert" only meaningless when it's used to question obscene wealth, instead of to defend it?

Or are you simply suggesting that the donater shouldnt have the right to give his money to who or what he wants to?

Actually, yes, I would suggest exactly that.

For instance, no one should have the "right" to donate billions of dollars to a cactus while people are dying of starvation and easily treatable diseases.

For instance, no one should have the "right" to donate billions of dollars to a cactus while people are dying of starvation and easily treatable diseases.

Trod carefully now. One could also argue that no one should have the "right" to buy luxuries or non-essentials (like e.g. computers to post on NSG) while people are dying of starvation and easily treatable diseases.

Pay for performance. As long as they're getting paid depending on how well the company is doing, I don't really have a problem with them getting large salaries. But if the company's losing money, the stock's tanking, and employees are losing their jobs left and right, nothing pisses me off more than some incompetent, greedy CEO making a fortune while the company decays.

Exactly. The culture of The Golden Parachute is the biggest asshattery of them all. To misquote the Doritos ad, "Fuck up the company all you want, we'll pay you more."

And the biggest Golden Parachute of them all is going to be deployed in the form of the George W. Bush Presidential Library at Southern Methodist University.

Indeed. Having said that, I don't support a system where you are either poor or a billionaire, like in russia. Which is why I would like certain elements of socialism to be implemented as well.

Of course. There has to be a degree of equality and well being for society (and an economy) to function.

This is the part about income redistribution that confuses me. Who decides what is equality and how? I'm thinking wage and price controls, but I'd rather have you tell me.

Who decides what is equality and how?

we do, through the use of logic and collective decision making

I'm thinking wage and price controls, but I'd rather have you tell me.

or maybe the abolition of the wage system entirely?

we do, through the use of logic and collective decision making Collective decision making is incompatible with logic.:D This is only a half-joking comment, but just keep in mind that most political decisions are quite lacking in logical strength.

or maybe the abolition of the wage system entirely?
Will we have magical ponies after the revolution comrade? Remind me when this occurs so I can flee the logical collective decision making process. It sounds too much like the borg, but in reality it will be too much like the bumblings of a drunkard.

so which skills in particular cause them to deserve their monstrosities of paychecks?

The ability to govern. The abilty to take a product or an idea from the drawing board to a real live solid object that people can use and buy. The ability to motivate and focus a large group of people to attain a common goal. This is a rare and valuable skill that is compensated for in modern economies.

i'm afraid i'm gonna need to see your argument for that claim

Simple enough. Name one single human on this earth, then explain why he is uniquely qualified to judge the quality and sufficiency of someone elses lifestyle. Is it too high or too low? We might as well have a judge decide what your favorite color is.

we do, through the use of logic and collective decision making

I hate to sound repetitive, but who's logic is applied and who gets to make the decisions? Unanimous agreement from 300 million in the U.S.? Not likely, but again, I don't want to put words in your mouth, so you tell me.

What earns you millions and millions of dollars is the plain and simple fact that you own and manage a company that sells a product that people really like, buy like crazy and thus giving their money to the company.

Or managing to figure out a way to charge people money for things they used to get for free. Satellite radio, anybody? Drinking water? Clean air?

Of course, you could always just keep those rose-tinted shades perched atop your lil' nose.

we do, through the use of logic and collective decision making


What an incomprehensible impossibility.

I hate to sound repetitive, but who's logic is applied and who gets to make the decisions? Unanimous agreement from 300 million in the U.S.? Not likely, but again, I don't want to put words in your mouth, so you tell me.

I wouldn't try, he probably expects everyone to just embrace communism willfully after the revolution. Reminds me of Lenin.

Or managing to figure out a way to charge people money for things they used to get for free. Satellite radio, anybody? Drinking water? Clean air?

Of course, you could always just keep those rose-tinted shades perched atop your lil' nose.
Why should satellite radio be free? Or treated drinking water -- not the bottled kind, it's called evian for a reason. There's a lot of work that goes into providing those services.

I wouldn't try, he probably expects everyone to just embrace communism willfully after the revolution. Reminds me of Lenin.
Communism and libertarianism suffer from the same problems. They both depend on actions and forces that have never overcome the capacity for humans to subvert those same actions and forces. I've made libertarianism my
ideal, but I know it won't work any better than communism.

I wouldn't try, he probably expects everyone to just embrace communism willfully after the revolution. Reminds me of Lenin.

Damn those Lenin puppets!

I’ve noticed from a few posters and thread on this forum that there seems to be an attitude that anyone who is in the executive position of a company that they don’t really earn the money that they are given and thus they should be taxed extra for it because they don’t deserve it.

I would just like to say that being an executive or a person in any management power is not an easy job. I mean if you’re a CEO of a company, you have to make a thousand decisions a day on how to run the company, anywhere from advertisement to how the workers should be treated. I mean any idiot can get a company started, it’s keeping the company afloat is the hard part.

Even at a shift manager position where my dad is, it’s a pretty hard job. My dad is basically a babysitter for his job at Philip Morris. He has to make sure everyone is doing their job, help out employees who need help, make sure that his shift meets their quota for that shift, and he’s also in charge of hiring and firing people. Trust me it’s not an easy job and I know that my dad earns every cent of his paycheck.

Now there are a few leaders who don’t deserve the millions that they get (Enron comes to mind), but that’s really just a small minority of business leaders.

I just thought I’d address this issues and see what you guys think.

But if you look at how these companies perform under their CEO's you'll see that performance does nothing to influence the money they earn. Thus CEO's by definition do not deserve the money they receive, because it is not impacted by what they do.

Take a look at all the CEO's whose bad financial sense and marketing decisions (Ford comes to mind) but pay their CEO's huge salaries. And if they do screw up so bad that they must be gotten rid of, are they fired? No. They're bought out with a severance package so huge that they have come to be known as "golden parachutes."

If CEO's got paid as a percentage of the growth in the companies profits, then I'd say sure they earned it. But they don't.

But if you look at how these companies perform under their CEO's you'll see that performance does nothing to influence the money they earn. Thus CEO's by definition do not deserve the money they receive, because it is not impacted by what they do.

though then again, one could just hold the line and say that people deserve X purely on the grounds of being human, and the fact that not all people currently get X is just evidence of injustice in the world. seems like an unlikely move to explicitly make in the case of ceo compensation, but at least we do recognize that as being a real basis for deserving some things.

The ability to govern. The abilty to take a product or an idea from the drawing board to a real live solid object that people can use and buy. The ability to motivate and focus a large group of people to attain a common goal. This is a rare and valuable skill that is compensated for in modern economies.

careful with the 'is' there, as we aren't interested in ises but oughts.

does everybody that has that ability deserve ridiculously large novelty paychecks? it is fairly clear that not everybody that has that ability does get those - is this an injustice in the world?

Why should satellite radio be free? Or treated drinking water -- not the bottled kind, it's called evian for a reason. There's a lot of work that goes into providing those services.

:rolleyes: treated drinking water shouldn't be free? Are you that retarded.

It benefits you by the fact your workers aren't out with dysentery all the time. It benefits you by the fact you aren't being taxed to death for medical that would be needed to help the sick children, etc.

At most you charge for the delivery mechanism.

Running it as a profit? Good god no.

You don't have a right to profit. You have a right to try and earn one.

Water belongs in the government's hands NOT businessmen(they can have the bottled water scam).

I’ve noticed from a few posters and thread on this forum that there seems to be an attitude that anyone who is in the executive position of a company that they don’t really earn the money that they are given and thus they should be taxed extra for it because they don’t deserve it.

I would just like to say that being an executive or a person in any management power is not an easy job. I mean if you’re a CEO of a company, you have to make a thousand decisions a day on how to run the company, anywhere from advertisement to how the workers should be treated. I mean any idiot can get a company started, it’s keeping the company afloat is the hard part.

Even at a shift manager position where my dad is, it’s a pretty hard job. My dad is basically a babysitter for his job at Philip Morris. He has to make sure everyone is doing their job, help out employees who need help, make sure that his shift meets their quota for that shift, and he’s also in charge of hiring and firing people. Trust me it’s not an easy job and I know that my dad earns every cent of his paycheck.

Now there are a few leaders who don’t deserve the millions that they get (Enron comes to mind), but that’s really just a small minority of business leaders.

I just thought I’d address this issues and see what you guys think.


No question they deserve their salary. CEO's and executives are some of the most intellegnet, hardest-working individuals in the world. And lets not forget whos paying their salaries. We are. By engaging in thousands of mutually beneficial transactions. They deserve to be rich for giving us great products at low everyday prices.

The ability to govern. The abilty to take a product or an idea from the drawing board to a real live solid object that people can use and buy. The ability to motivate and focus a large group of people to attain a common goal. This is a rare and valuable skill that is compensated for in modern economies.

Depending on your chosen profession. A politician or professor may have equal skills, but get paid vastly less - even though they are quite possibly far more important to society than the CEO.

No question they deserve their salary. CEO's and executives are some of the most intellegnet, hardest-working individuals in the world. And lets not forget whos paying their salaries. We are. By engaging in thousands of mutually beneficial transactions. They deserve to be rich for giving us great products at low everyday prices.

That sounds just like a Wal-Mart commercial.

:rolleyes: treated drinking water shouldn't be free? Are you that retarded.

It benefits you by the fact your workers aren't out with dysentery all the time. It benefits you by the fact you aren't being taxed to death for medical that would be needed to help the sick children, etc.

At most you charge for the delivery mechanism.

Running it as a profit? Good god no.

You don't have a right to profit. You have a right to try and earn one.

Water belongs in the government's hands NOT businessmen(they can have the bottled water scam).
Taxed and free are not the same thing. You put a few words in my mouth with that little rant. If you read and comprehended, you would notice that my response did not propose that water treatment should be turned over to a commercial entity, although, they could run it as well or better than most cities -- Atlanta excepted.

My household water comes from a well, but it isn't entirely free. I still pay electric bills for the pump.

Depending on your chosen profession. A politician or professor may have equal skills, but get paid vastly less - even though they are quite possibly far more important to society than the CEO.

I think that you would have a hard time convincing me of that. Back in the day, when I taught, I provided no where near the value to society that I did after I quit and invented a little device that reduced the price of satellite communications. The value to me was no where near the same, either. I wouldn't go back to a university, not even if I was able to own the place.

I think that you would have a hard time convincing me of that. Back in the day, when I taught, I provided no where near the value to society that I did after I quit and invented a little device that reduced the price of satellite communications.

so not skills then, but value to society is where the deservingness comes from?

so not skills then, but value to society is where the deservingness comes from?

Nobody deserves anything. This is a dog eat dog world. There is nothing fair nor just about it. Your house could be hit by a meteor tomorrow. Is this fair or just? Stop obsessing about deserved, the notion in economics simply does not exist. The bosses blonde daughter doesnt deserve to be VP. Shit happens. Lifes unfair. Deal with it. In economics its all about what you take, not what is given to you. The weak and inefficient wither and die. If your one of the fortunate few who thru luck or skill got to posess certain skills that are valued in our economy then gratz to you and enjoy your rewards. If you are a moron or simply have bad luck or bad pedigree well then life sucks for you , do the best you can and keep your head above water and deal. Dont cry or complain about who doesnt deserve to do what with thier money. Suck it up and be a man for gods sake. Any other questions?

Nobody deserves anything. This is a dog eat dog world. There is nothing fair nor just about it. Your house could be hit by a meteor tomorrow. Is this fair or just? Stop obsessing about deserved, the notion in economics simply does not exist. The bosses blonde daughter doesnt deserve to be VP. Shit happens. Lifes unfair. Deal with it. In economics its all about what you take, not what is given to you. The weak and inefficient wither and die. If your one of the fortunate few who thru luck or skill got to posess certain skills that are valued in our economy then gratz to you and enjoy your rewards. If you are a moron or simply have bad luck or bad pedigree well then life sucks for you , do the best you can and keep your head above water and deal. Dont cry or complain about who doesnt deserve to do what with thier money. Suck it up and be a man for gods sake. Any other questions?

I have one, will you be my friend? I like the way you think. :)

Nobody deserves anything. This is a dog eat dog world. There is nothing fair nor just about it.

ah, excellent. then no complaints when we expropriate their shit, right? fine be me - we outnumber them.

ah, excellent. then no complaints when we expropriate their shit, right? fine be me - we outnumber them.

Yea, but we can't just break into their home and steal their stuff, that'd be against the law.

ah, excellent. then no complaints when we expropriate their shit, right? fine be me - we outnumber them.
Are you concluding that the absence of universal justice means the lack of rule of law? The assertion is obviously false, rule of law and human desire for stability exist as their own forces, despite the lack of a provable idea of fairness amongst the competing ones.

There will be complaints though in any change, especially a disruptive one as expropriation. Life isn't fair, the world doesn't work perfectly, but although significant portion of us think that although the current system may have some imperfections, the arguments in favor of a system such as yours are considered relatively weak and the costs of implementation are considered extremely high when keeping in mind that most people don't like their stuff being expropriated.

You also cannot really overpower your foes as simply as you state, therefore, your assertion of "taking it" is as voiceless as it is toothless given the many who do support a system similar to the current and the power held by such groups.

How much do CEO's actually make? I never knew that answer...

so not skills then, but value to society is where the deservingness comes from?

I would consider a paying system based on that fair, yes.

OK. It's a basic fact that money can't just be dematerialised - it has to go somewhere.

Now we've got that fact firmly implanted in our minds, let's deal with the distribution of said money.

Obviously, workers are driven by their need for money. In the USA and the UK they are paid fairly according to their living expenses. Mostly the same over the world (Don't bring child labor into this. It's just flamebait.)

But, if workers were paid millions for doing basic work - Where is the motivation to start your own business? Where is the motivation to create? To innovate? To invent?

Basically, I'm saying there's a basic flaw in all this - if workers were paid the same as execs, there would be no desire to "climb the ranks" - meaning the entire private sector would collapse overnight.

Sure, "but dey cud donaet it 2 chartiy"

1: Why. Huge-ass charities lose half to 70% the donations in political bullshit and red tape anyway.

2: As a company gets bigger, the load increases, meaning more stress.

3: When I finally hit on the idea that works, I want to be able to keep myself and my future family financially secure. I don't want to be forced to throw away my money and security to a bunch of basically jealous radicals who think that just because they can't hack it, nobody else should.

Are you concluding that the absence of universal justice means the lack of rule of law?

no

so not skills then, but value to society is where the deservingness comes from?
No, only that the assumption about relative values to society was false.

The real answer to what a wage should be depends on the value that a consumer places on the service that a vendor has to offer. Certainly all market forces affect wages, just as they do commodities.

though then again, one could just hold the line and say that people deserve X purely on the grounds of being human, and the fact that not all people currently get X is just evidence of injustice in the world. seems like an unlikely move to explicitly make in the case of ceo compensation, but at least we do recognize that as being a real basis for deserving some things.

Yes. They deserve X for being human. So to the homeless people on the street. However CEO's receive 140,000,000X for being human while the homeless get by on X/5000 for being human and the bottom tier workers in that CEO's company only get X/2 for being human.

The issue is not whether or not CEO's deserve X. It's whether or not they deserve the 'X' of a hundred and 140 million other people too.

In the USA they are paid fairly according to their living expenses.
Paid fairly according to living expenses? Since when. They are paid in consideration of the local cost of living but I wouldn't go beyond that.

How much do CEO's actually make? I never knew that answer...

It depends on the company. Also their actual salary is a poor indicator of their income.

I used to process tax documents and I saw some forms with salaries in the hundred-million dollar range with several times that in capital gains and self-employment income (bonuses on a 1099).

On top of that they have the option of almost unlimited "deferred income." Which is the company doesn't give them all their pay at once because what they take up-front is more than they can spend in 10 years. So a chunk of their income is kept in a trust-fund for them. So their income is even larger than they must legally declare.

Simply working hard is not what earns you millions and millions of dollars. What earns you millions and millions of dollars is the plain and simple fact that you own and manage a company that sells a product that people really like, buy like crazy and thus giving their money to the company.
Why are you changing your argument here?

If they do not turn over a profit, then they'll have the lay off some workers and cut back etc.

That is pretty much the economics behind it.
True, but that doesn't make it right. People come before profits.

If a person doesn't like his salary at one company, then he's more than welcome to leave that company and go to another.
Your understanding of economic theory is remarkably arcane. People have been writing this unrealistic line since the late 18th century.

I have one, will you be my friend? I like the way you think. :)
Why do you like the way this man thinks? Besides some übermensch complex you may have?

If they do not turn over a profit, then they'll have the lay off some workers and cut back etc.
That is pretty much the economics behind it.

True, but that doesn't make it right. People come before profits.

No one likes to lay off a good employee. Most good employees won't get laid off. That's who the company depends on for a turn-around. It's the marginal guys, or the guys that don't fit into the core competencies of a company that get laid off first.



If a person doesn't like his salary at one company, then he's more than welcome to leave that company and go to another.

Your understanding of economic theory is remarkably arcane. People have been writing this unrealistic line since the late 18th century.
I'm not sure "arcane" is the word I'd have picked. If secret and obscure is really what you mean, sorry. I'd have said "old fashioned", judging by the context. Still, that would be wrong. Wilgrove makes a sound statement. In fact, it's policy I've followed, with great success, all my life. Changing jobs when a dead-end appears is required. Maybe you can explain why I've been the exception to your arcane economic policy.

No one likes to lay off a good employee. Most good employees won't get laid off. That's who the company depends on for a turn-around. It's the marginal guys, or the guys that don't fit into the core competencies of a company that get laid off first.
What I object to is the claim that a round of layoffs is a better step than a pay cut for an incompetent CEO.

It is not sufficietly humanitarian for me.

I'm not sure "arcane" is the word I'd have picked. If secret and obscure is really what you mean, sorry. I'd have said "old fashioned", judging by the context. Still, that would be wrong. Wilgrove makes a sound statement.
His statement is erroneous because it does not apply to everywhere. It assumes that desirable jobs are plentiful. He implies that there is no circumstance by which a worker losing his job is simply screwed. He does this in an attempt to legitimise an ideological agenda to turn the clock back on workers' rights. He is dedicated to securing the interests of the wealthy and powerful, 18th century-style.

His statement is erroneous because it does not apply to everywhere. It assumes that desirable jobs are plentiful. He implies that there is no circumstance by which a worker losing his job is simply screwed. He does this in an attempt to legitimise an ideological agenda to turn the clock back on workers' rights. He is dedicated to securing the interests of the wealthy and powerful, 18th century-style.

Nah. He's saying you have the right to apply to work wherever you want. If I get fired, I have the right to go look for work somewhere else. Of course I might not find it. Big deal. It's not my employer's job to make sure that there is a job for me at OTHER employer's organizations. That's really beyond his control and responsibility.

As for securing the interests of the wealthy and powerful, 18th century style, it's interesting to note that the wealthiest today make far, far, far more than the wealthiest of that century did. This despite all the advances in socialist policies designed to equalize everyone.

Yea, but as we've seen in the past, Socialistic or communistic society rarely works.

Let me jump in here real quick to ask this one question. Please Wilgrove tell me one true socialistic or communistic society that did not work. While we are at it why don't we look at most small Jewish towns esp. the ones circa The Six Day War. They were all socialistic and they all prospered. If you attempt to use any country that claims to be Communist like the USSR or Red China or Vietnam or Indonesia or Laos or Cuba or any country of that ilk I will laugh in your face because they are not communist or socialist, they are totalitarian governments pretending to be communist.

Nah. He's saying you have the right to apply to work wherever you want. If I get fired, I have the right to go look for work somewhere else. Of course I might not find it.
Then you're screwed. You can't eat the "right to seek work".

As for securing the interests of the wealthy and powerful, 18th century style, it's interesting to note that the wealthiest today make far, far, far more than the wealthiest of that century did. This despite all the advances in socialist policies designed to equalize everyone.
So do the poor as does everyone else. It's called the development of civilisation.

Let me jump in here real quick to ask this one question. Please Wilgrove tell me one true socialistic or communistic society that did not work. While we are at it why don't we look at most small Jewish towns esp. the ones circa The Six Day War. They were all socialistic and they all prospered. If you attempt to use any country that claims to be Communist like the USSR or Red China or Vietnam or Indonesia or Laos or Cuba or any country of that ilk I will laugh in your face because they are not communist or socialist, they are totalitarian governments pretending to be communist.

This old and oft-repeated falsehood...

Aside from the mountain of evidence in the soviet union, north korea, &c that communism is a miserable way to run a country, there is the other fact that communism, as it is fantasized about by unrealistic idealists, cannot be put into practice in the real world.

When you try, you get USSR, DPRK, &c &c.

Of all the communist countries, the most successful just this month passed a new law establishing private property rights.

This old and oft-repeated falsehood...

Aside from the mountain of evidence in the soviet union, north korea, &c that communism is a miserable way to run a country, there is the other fact that communism, as it is fantasized about by unrealistic idealists, cannot be put into practice in the real world.

When you try, you get USSR, DPRK, &c &c.

Of all the communist countries, the most successful just this month passed a new law establishing private property rights.

Thats funny. Your argument is very funny. And it is funny because there have been many communist countries just like the ones "fantasized about by unrealistic idealists". Where do you think Karl Marx got his ideas? From Teutsch and Celtic tribes.

Let me jump in here real quick to ask this one question. Please Wilgrove tell me one true socialistic or communistic society that did not work. While we are at it why don't we look at most small Jewish towns esp. the ones circa The Six Day War. They were all socialistic and they all prospered. If you attempt to use any country that claims to be Communist like the USSR or Red China or Vietnam or Indonesia or Laos or Cuba or any country of that ilk I will laugh in your face because they are not communist or socialist, they are totalitarian governments pretending to be communist.

That part about the Kibbutz's is nonsense. The Israeli government subsidizes those very heavily. If the collectives were truly successful, they would need no outside assistance.

So the notion that a society which prevents the private ownership of property and is still prosperous, is still unproven. Just because you can't find an example of a failure, doesn't prove the point.

The other thing you need to do is get your terms organized. Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, etc, all refer to an economic system. Democratic, totalitarian, and the like refer to the government. Thus, it is completely possible to have a communist totalitarian, or a social democratic system of economy/government co-existing.

Nah. He's saying you have the right to apply to work wherever you want. If I get fired, I have the right to go look for work somewhere else. Of course I might not find it. Big deal. It's not my employer's job to make sure that there is a job for me at OTHER employer's organizations. That's really beyond his control and responsibility.

As for securing the interests of the wealthy and powerful, 18th century style, it's interesting to note that the wealthiest today make far, far, far more than the wealthiest of that century did. This despite all the advances in socialist policies designed to equalize everyone.

In fact, it's more than just the right to find work after being fired. It's the right to find work, _before_ being fired. Or the right to work for any company that desires your services. Or the right to start your own company. Any of those are valid choices and sound statements regarding a capitalistic economy. I'm sorry for anyone that doesn't have that freedom of choice.

no
I think that your answer is an obvious one, however, the point I was getting at is that even if there is no universal justice guiding something that does not mean that the system doesn't matter.

Then you're screwed. You can't eat the "right to seek work".

Yep. Best not to get in a situation where you are unemployed and unemployable. Common sense yes?

So do the poor as does everyone else. It's called the development of civilisation.

No, I'm talking as a proportion, of wealthiest:poorest. Also known as income gap. It's bigger now than it was in the time period you are referring to.

In fact, it's more than just the right to find work after being fired. It's the right to find work, _before_ being fired. Or the right to work for any company that desires your services. Or the right to start your own company.

Well, yeah. The whole economic liberty kit n' kaboodle. I only mentioned one instance because being "screwed after being fired" seemed to be the example at hand.

Well, yeah. The whole economic liberty kit n' kaboodle. I only mentioned one instance because being "screwed after being fired" seemed to be the example at hand.
It's amazing how hard a good company will work to help a good employee land a new job. I doubt most NSGers have the frame of reference to consider that. For them, it's more the "I got canned from the Burger King" sort of thing. That never abstracts to anything good. Still, it's tough to lay off good people and I doubt that any company management takes the decisions lightly -- Burger King excepted.

I’ve noticed from a few posters and thread on this forum that there seems to be an attitude that anyone who is in the executive position of a company that they don’t really earn the money that they are given and thus they should be taxed extra for it because they don’t deserve it.

I would just like to say that being an executive or a person in any management power is not an easy job. I mean if you’re a CEO of a company, you have to make a thousand decisions a day on how to run the company, anywhere from advertisement to how the workers should be treated. I mean any idiot can get a company started, it’s keeping the company afloat is the hard part.

There is no evidence to suggest that going up in the hierarchy creates any harder of a work environment. Some of the hardest jobs are actually on the bottom of the ladder, and are compensated no where near fairly.

In the ideal perfectly competitive capitalist world that the neoclassical economists love to talk so reverantly of, each person's pay should be equivalent to their contribution. But we don't live in that world, nor do I think the perfectly competitive world can meet its own outrageous expectations.

CEO compensation has run completely amok in the past two decades. On average (which masks the outliers) CEO compensation has increased 12 fold in the past 20 years. Are the CEOs of today 12 times better, on average, then the CEOs of 20 years ago? I don't think so.

In fact, it's more than just the right to find work after being fired. It's the right to find work, _before_ being fired. Or the right to work for any company that desires your services. Or the right to start your own company. Any of those are valid choices and sound statements regarding a capitalistic economy. I'm sorry for anyone that doesn't have that freedom of choice.
Certainly. I'm not arguing for communism here; just arguing against pure capitalism which you and the Californian appear to be advocating.

Yep. Best not to get in a situation where you are unemployed and unemployable. Common sense yes?

So if I fail to live in the right place, with the right employers locally, and have more education than the next man, I deserve the screwing that's coming to me?

No, I'm talking as a proportion, of wealthiest:poorest. Also known as income gap. It's bigger now than it was in the time period you are referring to.
I'm not so sure about that. Back then most of the poor lived in third-world conditions. Or at least at a level where they were locked out of the consumption economy.

So if I fail to live in the right place, with the right employers locally, and have more education than the next man, I deserve the screwing that's coming to me?


Firstly, you wont be screwed, you will easily be able to find a job as with most densely populated wealthy capitalist societies wherever you are. Secondly, define job.

No, only that the assumption about relative values to society was false.

The real answer to what a wage should be depends on the value that a consumer places on the service that a vendor has to offer. Certainly all market forces affect wages, just as they do commodities.

so desert has a market rate? and that is the determinant of value to society, despite the fact that there is a well known disconnect between markets and other systems of measuring value?

If a CEO can turn a bad company around and make a killing for the shareholders he should be compensated based upon those results.

If a CEO can take a large company and keep it as productive or more than the competition he should be compensated a lot too. CEOs and professional athletes are generally paid what they are worth. So you make less big fricking deal grow up ya pansies!

CEOs and professional athletes are generally paid what they are worth. So you make less big fricking deal grow up ya pansies!
Robert Diamond, a main board director of Barclays PLC, recently collected a wage packet of £27,000,000 p/a (around $53,000,000 p/a). The staff who work in Barclays' branches earn about £20,000 p/a (around $40,000 p/a).

By your economical estimates, Mr. Diamond is worth roughly 1350 times that of a bank worker.

Methinks not.

The other thing you need to do is get your terms organized. Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, etc, all refer to an economic system. Democratic, totalitarian, and the like refer to the government. Thus, it is completely possible to have a communist totalitarian, or a social democratic system of economy/government co-existing.

Not as much as you might think. Communism is by definition the economic mode of production wherein control of the means of production rests in the hands of the proletariat. Have any of the totalitarian "communist" countries achieved such a state? Of course not, because totalitarianism in itself implies total control of whatever brings about power in the complete hands of the government; more specifically, the elite in government. The one (mass control of the economic means of production) is pretty hard to square with the other (elite control of the means of political power, in this case co-equal with economic means of production).

It depends on the company. Also their actual salary is a poor indicator of their income.

I used to process tax documents and I saw some forms with salaries in the hundred-million dollar range with several times that in capital gains and self-employment income (bonuses on a 1099).

On top of that they have the option of almost unlimited "deferred income." Which is the company doesn't give them all their pay at once because what they take up-front is more than they can spend in 10 years. So a chunk of their income is kept in a trust-fund for them. So their income is even larger than they must legally declare.

Wow that is ridiculous, so they have even more millions than they declare.

They must have served Satan well (joking) but seriously that is ridiculous.

GO TO http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/index.cfm

On corporate Pay


WHAT IT SAID TO ME

My friend works at Starbucks. The majority even people in their 30s that workat Starbucks for several years make under $20,000 a year or even less. Many of these people are pregnant, get no perks, but this company has good benefits but still sucks.

In order to equal what the CEO of Starbucks makes compared to my friend's $18,000.

How You Compare
to Your CEO


James L. Donald's compensation could support 564 workers earning your salary.

You would have to work 564 years to equal James L. Donald's 2005 compensation.

You'd better get working, because you can't take a vacation until 2570 A.D.


Above values calculated with
the compensation you entered ($18,000)

How Other Workers
Compare to Your CEO

How many workers could be supported by James L. Donald's $10,156,274 pay package?

10 Nobel prize winners
30 average university presidents
25 U.S. presidents
45 AFL-CIO presidents
94 Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
398 average workers
948 minimum-wage earners

How long would it take to equal James L. Donald's total compensation for 2005?

A Nobel prize winner would have to work until 2016 A.D.
An average university president would have to work until 2036 A.D.
The President of the United States would have to work until 2031 A.D.
AFL-CIO President John Sweeney would have to work until 2051 A.D.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would have to work until 2100 A.D.
An average worker would have to work until 2404 A.D.
A minimum-wage earner would have to work until 2954 A.D.

PayWatch Fact Sheet

James L. Donald
Chief Executive Officer
Starbucks Corporation

2005 Compensation
Salary $887,308
Bonus $1,800,000
Long-Term Incentive Payoffs $0
Restricted Stock Awards $0
Other Compensation $10,074
Value of Stock Option Grants* $7,458,892
Total 2005 Compensation Plus Stock Option Grants

$10,156,274
Compensation from Prior Stock Option Grants**
Value of Options Exercised in 2005 $0
Value of Exercisable Options $11,023,000
Value of Unexercisable Options $9,059,000
* Black Scholes present value model as estimated by The Corporate Library.
** Not counted in 2005 compensation totals.
Source: The Corporate Library

CEO-to-Worker Comparisons


James L. Donald Annual: $10,156,274 Weekly: $195,312 Daily: $39,062 Hourly: $4,882 Per Minute:$81

Minimum-Wage Worker Annual: $10,712 Weekly: $206 Daily: $41 Hourly: $5.15 Per Minute: $0.09

Average Worker Annual: $25,501 Weekly: $490 Daily: $98 Hourly: $12.26 Per Minute: $0.20

President of the U.S.A. Annual: $400,000 Weekly: $7,692 Daily: $1,538 Hourly: $192 Per Minute: $3.21

Two things, one do you use 1984 as you bible or something.
Number 2 Ther is no such thing as pure democracy, and there is no such thing as pure communism. Take a look at the U.S. Minmum wage, and unons are both communistic ideas. How ever the senate is democratic. In the U.S.S.R. they had some small buisnnnes, captilist, and twords the end they even had a senate. Thers is alo no such thing as pure captilisim.

Also as stated in Animal Farm, some All animals are created equal but some animals are more equal than others. Sorry for the bad spelling I'm tired.

Also as stated in Animal Farm, some All animals are created equal but some animals are more equal than others. Sorry for the bad spelling I'm tired.

You sound 13

Because we live in a free capitalistic society.

That makes it legal not deserving ... I am awful libertarian when it comes to business practices but just because they have the right to earn that obscene salary does not mean they deserve it

You start the OP by trying to justify their actions but when called to defend it you dont defend the morality but the legality ... I wonder if it is intended

So if I fail to live in the right place, with the right employers locally, and have more education than the next man, I deserve the screwing that's coming to me?


You can move. Or get educated.

To quote Clint Eastwood in Unforgiven, "Deserve's got nothin' to do with it."

I don't have a right to a job that I don't get hired for. That's just how it goes. I mean I'd love it if I did. I'd also love it if I had an actual right to marry a girl who rejects me. But that's kind of barbaric.

I'm not so sure about that. Back then most of the poor lived in third-world conditions. Or at least at a level where they were locked out of the consumption economy.

Check the upper-level incomes for then and now. They're much higher nowadays in comparison with the poorest. The poorest have always been at "living wage" (in the strict sense of being able to sustain life) throughout history, but there were no billionnaires until the early 20th century, and there are far more at the top end (millionnaires and billionnaires) than there were even then. The gap widens. That's really one thing socialism is and has always been concerned about, ever since - in fact - the early 20th century.

Unless you count Royalty, but I include them under State, and States have always been exceptionally wealthy since they get their income at the point of a gun.

It's amazing how hard a good company will work to help a good employee land a new job. I doubt most NSGers have the frame of reference to consider that. For them, it's more the "I got canned from the Burger King" sort of thing. That never abstracts to anything good. Still, it's tough to lay off good people and I doubt that any company management takes the decisions lightly -- Burger King excepted.

Yep. Of course, not all companies are "good" enough to recognize a good employee. But then of course that may be one reason why 50% of start-up businesses fail within some short amount of time.

It's amazing how hard a good company will work to help a good employee land a new job. I doubt most NSGers have the frame of reference to consider that. For them, it's more the "I got canned from the Burger King" sort of thing. That never abstracts to anything good. Still, it's tough to lay off good people and I doubt that any company management takes the decisions lightly -- Burger King excepted.

Some do ... and some dont bother, we have landed a few absolutely top quality people in the educational realm that a few differing companies left hanging and they decided a change of pace was in order.

Few years of absolute solid work with them goes to show that A) those companies did not care about them or B) Did not recognize their true value.

It's amazing how hard a good company will work to help a good employee land a new job. I doubt most NSGers have the frame of reference to consider that. For them, it's more the "I got canned from the Burger King" sort of thing. That never abstracts to anything good. Still, it's tough to lay off good people and I doubt that any company management takes the decisions lightly -- Burger King excepted.

Some do but many do not.

I have seen good people tossed for reasons such as:

The company didn't know what to do with them.
The manager felt threatened.
The employee pointed out flaws.
The company simply just didn't care.

There are far more bad managers then there are good. Especially in the IT world. I am amazed who somebody can be a manager and be technically illiterate.

Some do but many do not.

I have seen good people tossed for reasons such as:

The company didn't know what to do with them.
The manager felt threatened.
The employee pointed out flaws.
The company simply just didn't care.

There are far more bad managers then there are good. Especially in the IT world. I am amazed who somebody can be a manager and be technically illiterate.
Agreed though I thank god for places like our BCIS program ... they nailed a few REALLY good linux/networking profs I am doing some work with them lately and they not only have large cluster building projects but they routinely take top 3 in digi-key programming compition (ahead of most comp-sci departments)



Its pretty cool to have at least semi smart IT managers :)

Agreed though I thank god for places like our BCIS program ... they nailed a few REALLY good linux/networking profs I am doing some work with them lately and they not only have large cluster building projects but they routinely take top 3 in digi-key programming compition (ahead of most comp-sci departments)


Color me jealous! :D I am doing the same ol thing but I am sneaking in a Beowulf setup. Proof of concept as to the value of parallel processing for our type of software.

A couple engineers pitched it but the management didn't understand it so they shot it down.

We are going to build a system rewrite some of the code and show the difference in times.

Its pretty cool to have at least semi smart IT managers :)

That's why I remain at a job I have "top runged out" Manager is damn good. Followed him to this company as well. The previous time I worked for him; he saw something and gave me a chance when several other managers and headhunters said I could only do low level work.

I went from being barely hireable to designing networks.....

Color me jealous! :D I am doing the same ol thing but I am sneaking in a Beowulf setup. Proof of concept as to the value of parallel processing for our type of software.

A couple engineers pitched it but the management didn't understand it so they shot it down.

We are going to build a system rewrite some of the code and show the difference in times.



That's why I remain at a job I have "top runged out" Manager is damn good. Followed him to this company as well. The previous time I worked for him; he saw something and gave me a chance when several other managers and headhunters said I could only do low level work.

I went from being barely hireable to designing networks.....

Yeah we use a lot of MPI based password cracking software for proof of concept ... I am helping the department rewrite some of it ...

But I dont have much time being that I actualy run the network on campus and teach courses lol

Edit: and everything stays proof of concept here lol ... at least at work :)

15 years ago, about 30% of the people were able to afford Product A.

However, with the improvement of the economy, and basically standard of living all across the board has allowed 80% of the people to afford product A. Which means that the company rakes in more profit, and thus CEOs get more money.So then the CEO deserves to make more money because of government policy?

Other than just the envy you feel at not making those big bucks, what difference does it make what a CEO gets paid? What difference does it make to you how much a CEO is taxed?

Why should satellite radio be free? Or treated drinking water -- not the bottled kind, it's called evian for a reason. There's a lot of work that goes into providing those services.Because the water shouldn't have been polluted in the first place.

But, if workers were paid millions for doing basic work - Where is the motivation to start your own business? Where is the motivation to create? To innovate? To invent?The motivation to create would come from either enjoying creating things, or from wanting to make your life easier.
Why should there be motivation to create something that there isn't already a demand for?

so desert has a market rate? and that is the determinant of value to society, despite the fact that there is a well known disconnect between markets and other systems of measuring value?
You're not getting it, are you? Desert (dessert? People spell so poorly that I don't know whether you want sand or a sundae) has a value. It all depends on what a consumer is willing to pay. Forget about the value to society. That doesn't matter. All that matters when a wage is set, is the value the employer places on the services of the employee. That's it. That also explains why a NBA star can command a salary out of all reasonable proportions.

Some do but many do not.

I have seen good people tossed for reasons such as:

The company didn't know what to do with them.
The manager felt threatened.
The employee pointed out flaws.
The company simply just didn't care.

There are far more bad managers then there are good. Especially in the IT world. I am amazed who somebody can be a manager and be technically illiterate.
Well, I suppose anecdotes are worth the value you place on them. The fact is that it isn't cheap to replace an employee, so there's very little reason to let a good one go.

Color me jealous! :D I am doing the same ol thing but I am sneaking in a Beowulf setup. Proof of concept as to the value of parallel processing for our type of software.

A couple engineers pitched it but the management didn't understand it so they shot it down.

You do know that there are other reasons for management to kill a project. It might not fit the core business, there may expenses that you don't see as the R&D engineer, the market may not be right for the product at the present, there may be no R&D money for this...I've had any number of good ideas canned because of the above reasons. It isn't personal, it's business.

That's why I started my own business. That's harder than it looks, too. It was a relief to get bought out.

And maybe people deserve to be murdered for advocating basic workers' rights in Colombia. Who knows? :)

http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/2933/3169915304381e9ab5eowl4.jpg

somebody had to post it

http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/2933/3169915304381e9ab5eowl4.jpg

somebody had to post itI think somebody already did. I saw that cartoon on this forum only a couple of days ago I think.

Desert (dessert? People spell so poorly that I don't know whether you want sand or a sundae) has a value.

desert = the deservedness of reward or punishment
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/desert/

Forget about the value to society. That doesn't matter.

well you are the one who brought it up.

we've been cycling through justifications at an amazing clip in this thread. i'm just trying to figure out
1) is there any sort of deserving going on when it comes to compensation?
2) if so, what the hell is that desert claim based on?

(and if no to number 1, it seems that you have to accept the consequence that that means people have no claim on how much of their compensation they are allowed to keep or how restricted they are in using it - they don't deserve it in the first place, but hold it entirely at the sufferance of society)

Did any one look at my sample report?

Well, I suppose anecdotes are worth the value you place on them. The fact is that it isn't cheap to replace an employee, so there's very little reason to let a good one go.

Translation: Aw damn my all knowing claim isn't the truth.

Replacing employees is easy. Especially in the IT world. "Good" is a matter of opinion. I have seen more then a few managers that want a "good" employee to be a seasoned professional but are only willing to pay a rookies wage. So yes a "good" employee is hard to replace.

I think somebody already did. I saw that cartoon on this forum only a couple of days ago I think.

yeah that's where i got it from, but i thought it was especially relavent to this thread.

You do know that there are other reasons for management to kill a project.

You do know that managers are not all forward thinkers and many do kill things they don't understand right?

It might not fit the core business, there may expenses that you don't see as the R&D engineer, the market may not be right for the product at the present, there may be no R&D money for this...


:D Typical.

No worker could EVER understand the the hidden costs. No engineer would NEVER know the cost of equipment. No engineer EVER chats with customers.

Oh wait many do.

I've had any number of good ideas canned because of the above reasons. It isn't personal, it's business.

Sometimes it's business as that product doesn't fit in with the menu of products.

Sometimes it's personal as in they don't get it so it must be a bad idea.


That's why I started my own business. That's harder than it looks, too. It was a relief to get bought out.

The only problem I have with extremely high paid CEOs and such are the ones whose salaries are completely base salary. Not a penny is based on the performance of the company or a multiple of a percentage of the stock value.