Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditEven John McCain is worried about the size of CEO compensations these days. The 1970's CEO earned 40 times the salary of the average worker, the CEO of the early 2000's made 170 times the paycheck of the average worker. Or much more, depending on the study one consults and the way a paycheck is defined.
Why would a conservative politician such as McCain express dislike of the pay of these new superstars of our global economy? Aren't those gigantic salaries well earned? Isn't the reason for the dizzying rewards of the top CEOs the same as the reason why Nomar Garciaparra gets paid so much? That the money is richly warranted because of the exceptional talents of a few corporate superstars?
That depends on whose take on the markets for CEOs you believe. For the traditional "free market" views nobody can beat the Cato Institute. This is what it said about executive compensation a year ago:
On a recent visit to the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, President Bush saw fit to decry the rising inequality in America, complaining that corporate salaries, bonuses and stock options were part of the problem. "We need to pay attention to the executive compensation packages that you approve," he told the audience.Get it? Either the pay packets are just fine because paying so much helps the firm to perform better or they are just fine because it's up to the shareholders to make sure that they don't pay too much for the CEO services. Why should the rest of us worry our pretty little heads over it anyway?With all due respect: nonsense. Excessive executive compensation harms no one but perhaps the stockholders who put up with it. And stockholders put up with it because there's good reason to believe that sizable CEO compensation packages help -- not harm -- corporate performance, which redounds to their benefit, and that of the firms' workers.
Perhaps because the pattern we observe over time in the growth of CEO pay is linked to the pattern of increasing income inequality in the American economy? But also because of recent evidence which suggests that it's not at all clear that CEOs get paid a lot (a lot) only in firms which are doing well. They also get paid a lot (a lot) in some firms which are doing terribly. Examples of the latter abound:
Certainly, some of the highest-paid chiefs -- including Lawrence J. Ellison of Oracle, Alan G. Lafley of Procter & Gamble and Lloyd C. Blankfein of Goldman Sachs -- presided over companies that did very well. But in other cases, it was hard to see a connection between high pay and savvy management.Calculating batting averages without counting strikes. That pretty much sums the problem up nicely.Soaring oil prices, not stellar strategy, brought huge profits to many oil companies last year, yet Ray R. Irani, chief of Occidental Petroleum, saw his compensation rise 21 percent, to $33.6 million making him the sixth-highest-paid executive in the group of 200 in the survey.
Conversely, the aftermath of the subprime mortgage debacle wreaked havoc at Merrill Lynch, causing the ouster of E. Stanley O'Neal last fall. It is too soon to know whether John A. Thain, who now has the top spot, can restore Merrill's former glory. But thanks in large part to a hefty signing bonus, he was the highest-paid executive in the survey, with a compensation package that totaled almost $83.8 million.
Then again, the financial services industry traditionally pays well. The heads of four financial companies -- Mr. Thain, Mr. Blankfein, Kenneth I. Chenault of American Express and John J. Mack of Morgan Stanley -- were among the 10 highest-paid chief executives in the survey.
Even when the credit crisis cost financial chiefs their jobs, it did not hurt their paychecks. Mr. O'Neal at Merrill and Charles Prince at Citigroup both walked away with fortunes.
Washington Mutual, meanwhile, decided that write-offs would not count when it calculated performance-based bonuses, a decision that one compensation expert referred to as calculating batting averages without counting strikes.
It looks like executive pay and the performance of the firm are not linked the way the Cato Institute article argued. What about the second point of that piece, the one that suggested the shareholders should just quit paying bad executives so much?
That would be nice, assuming that the shareholders were told exactly how CEO compensation packages are determined and how those packages are related to performance. But many firms write about this in an intentionally fuzzy manner or argue that revealing how performance might be linked to rewards will tell its competitors too much. The end result is that the shareholders are not really allowed to know how their CEOs are compensated.
So we have these supersized executive pay packages, justified as rewards for rare and unusual abilities, except that even bad executives get them (often in the form of "golden parachutes" when they are fired) and we have shareholders who are not allowed to know how they pay their executives, though it looks like they pay them very well indeed. And all this is supposed to show how well the markets for CEO pay work?
If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Well, first...."Even John McCain is worried".....
it's going to be funny to listen to HAPPY, as big a McCainanite AND free-market conservative as they come, (and others) explain that "Maverick John" "doesn't REALLY mean it"....heheh
Second, sorry Ms Goodrich, but....what's your "plan"? Government mandates that "no corporation can pay its CEO more than 50X what the average worker makes"?....never pass Congress. (Lots of John Nichols/Katrina vanden Heuvel posts about how Bernie Sanders or somebody is proposing it...but it dies in committee).
Or the old stand-by of a big tax hike on the "super rich"...again, not likely. We'll get the phasing-out of the Bush cuts on purely fiscal responsibility grounds, but no big "soak the rich" plans....Obama won't even push it if he gets elected.
Posted by Mask at 04/10/2008 @ 1:00pm
I wouldn't argue that there are CEO's making more than they're worth. Although I can tell you first hand there's a lot of janitors making more than they're worth ,too, not to mention people at all levels of American business.
And I would certainly question any Gov. mandate placing limits on executive salaries. Not that I want to see them making all the money. I just wonder what makes the Gov think they are anywhere NEAR qualified to be making such decisions.
And who would make such decisions if such a law were ever passed? Will we have a "Minister of Competition" like in Europe, no doubt some Gov lackey who never spent a day on a manufacturing floor or business office in his life.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 04/10/2008 @ 1:16pm
Posted by MASK 04/10/2008 @ 1:00pm
I have to agree. No one would ever soak the rich because most of the people passing tax policy are rich. Why would they give up their own money? Also agree there is no real way to solve this phenomena so what's the point in griping over it? Exec are greedy money loving people. They would be CEO's if that wasn't the case. That's why Enron didn't surprise me. When you are that obsessed with money it can only lead you to stealing as much as you can.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/10/2008 @ 1:21pm
They wouldn't be CEO's*
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/10/2008 @ 1:38pm
I wouldn't argue that there are CEO's making more than they're worth. Although I can tell you first hand there's a lot of janitors making more than they're worth ,too, not to mention people at all levels of American business.
I find it amusing to say the least that you wouldn't question executive pay, often ranging in millions of dollars per year, but you would argue that janitors make too much. I don't know which janitors you're referring to or how you determine how much they're "worth" (and are we talking about their work or their value as humans here?) but where I live, janitors earn poverty wages and almost all work second, sometimes even third, full-time jobs in order to pay rent and put food on the table for their families.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is, I'm really curious to know on what grounds someone who sits in an office all day should be making 50, 100, or 150 times as much as someone who performs taxing physical labor in the same company and is not even making a living wage, even when, as in the examples above, the former's work is not tremendously beneficial to the company's performance in any demonstrable way.
Posted by joyfulspark at 04/10/2008 @ 1:40pm
Exec are greedy money loving people. They would be CEO's if that wasn't the case.-----Posted by CCCOMFO1 04/10/2008 @ 1:21pm
So...that would have included Ben & Jerry?
Posted by Mask at 04/10/2008 @ 1:43pm
if one adds up the salaries of top company officers one finds the comboned total can become quite a large percentage of total profit.
part of a socially responsible corporate tax code needs to address this.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/10/2008 @ 1:45pm
So...that would have included Ben & Jerry?
Posted by MASK 04/10/2008 @ 1:43pm
Are you kidding me. Ben and Jerry are the worst of them. Fattening us up to fatten their wallets....Bastards!
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/10/2008 @ 1:46pm
We used to have 90% upper bracket income tax levels. For over a decade it was over 50%. These decades were the 40's, 50's and 60's. That's right, the economic golden age of this country. Why it is that we are talking about forcing a ratio between executive pay and worker pay rather than just taxing the executives more escapes me. At least with higher tax rates you can reduce the inequality, the money that the CEO doesn't get goes to the people rather than back to the shareholders, and unlike with a salary cap, stockholders can still raise their offer to be competitive with other companies for a highly touted executive.
Mask, As constituted the Congress would not pass such legislation. But again you seem unable to think long term politically. One thing that citizens can do is organize to change the makeup of Congress. In 1880 real legislation against the trusts was a laughable prospect. The Senate was completely controlled by the people they would have to regulate. It took several decades, but the trusts were broken and reasonable labor laws were passed. Of course things like that only happen when people are willing to say 'It couldn't happen now, I guess we have to work for it.' The pessimism to which you succumb is not realism, but laziness.
Thornton. When the government decides to do something that would be our elected representatives deciding to do something. After all Congress, not some bereaucrat, would decide something like this. And who says that the people's elected representatives are the best people to handle economic regulation? I think that was the Constitution. But you can save some time and ask anyone with a basic commitment to democracy and they will tell you the same. This isn't stockholders vs. the government. This is stockholders vs. the people.
DP
Posted by Poppolphil at 04/10/2008 @ 1:48pm
Posted by POPPOLPHIL 04/10/2008 @ 1:48pm
I don't consider realism to be "laziness". And I never said anything about "long term".
I fully admit that "in the future", you might get a hike in the top tax brackets....50% will be a hard barrier to cross though, since the obvious spin will be "...and the Government takes HALF of what you earn by the sweat of your brow!"
You have a plan to take the Congress "more progressive"...fine, love to hear it (and see if it would REALLY work).
But I don't see any of that happening in the next 4 years, even with an Obama Presidency and a Congress picking up 5-12 seats this fall.
Again, the Bush tax cuts left to lapse?...sure. But that'll be it.
Posted by Mask at 04/10/2008 @ 1:56pm
Actually, shareholders are mostly full of the CEO's buddies, so they rarely complain. Shareholding is like democracy where the more money you have, the more votes you have. It is the perfect democracy for the rich.
Posted by ElyDog at 04/10/2008 @ 2:21pm
Why does the guvt have to fix this? Isn't that the job of boards and stockholders? But, the stockholders are often in the dark, and the CEO's sit on each others boards.
the guvt could say " make as much as you want, but at 25 million we will take 1/2, at 50 million we will take 60%, at 100 million we will take 65%". It was done in the past, when America was thriving, and many, many people got really really rich. The difference now is that back then, many other shared in the gains, now that is not often the case.
CHIP, nice move to put janitors and CEO's making 33 million on the same level. What a joke.
Anybody that considers themselves to have a moral center should be outraged over the discrepancies between top manager pay and underling pay. The CEO's cannot do it without the underlings, that is not always the case in revers.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/10/2008 @ 2:21pm
CHIP, nice move to put janitors and CEO's making 33 million on the same level. What a joke.
a bitter joke since Chip is employed at the level of those very janitors. there's so much personal satisfaction in defending the prerogatives of the privileged.
nice post Poppo. the top tax bracket was actually up to 94% at one point.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/10/2008 @ 2:31pm
the obscenely high CEO salaries also hurt the shareholders, as this the money that would have gone to them.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/10/2008 @ 2:33pm
Corporations have a unique status in the united states, different than any business in the world. The intent is that they are owned by the public and governed by boards of directors, (i.e. publicly owned by many). They are given a special status for taxes, but since the massive deregulation, boards have lost their oversight responsibility and many boards are corrupted by cronies, ergo, Enron, Bear Sterns. etc... sort of like our government. They have managed to convince the public that they can regulate themselves, we should trust greed, and they should be allowed to trade the sweat equity of our parents to foreign countries as they choose. Thanks to CEOS we have thousands of losers among labor for every over paid Chief executive Officer. We have gone past the tipping point, however, note how easily they were able to destroy John Edwards. The media is, in fact, the message.
Posted by julien38 at 04/10/2008 @ 2:48pm
however, note how easily they were able to destroy John Edwards.-------Posted by JULIEN38 04/10/2008 @ 2:48pm
See....I KNEW John Edwards couldn't lose "on his own"...or on the fact that Obama generated more excitement...or Hillary had more Establishment support....
it HAD to be the evil corporations somehow convincing DEMOCRATIC primary voters to screw him over!
Posted by Mask at 04/10/2008 @ 2:58pm
And who would make such decisions if such a law were ever passed? Will we have a "Minister of Competition" like in Europe, no doubt some Gov lackey who never spent a day on a manufacturing floor or business office in his life.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 04/10/2008 @ 1:16pm
Wasn't it the Americans who invented anti-trust laws? It's not that different from what's happening in the European Union, really. There is a commissioner who tries to see to it that no monopolies exist, and that no one company or group of companies gets too powerful in any one market. Granted, I don't like the current Commissioner for Competition much - even though we're both Dutch - but I don't have a problem with her job title.
It makes me smile sometimes, to see how terrified some Americans are at the mere thought of their country becoming a bit more like Europe. But of course Europe is a big place, and perhaps your image of Europe is based more on, say, Albania than, say, Finland. There is a vast difference, I'll admit. But Northwestern Europe - the UK, Ireland, The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland - is one of the best corners of the world to live in.
Getting back on topic, I agree with you that governments should not interfere with the way companies reward their employees - not even if these employees are CEOs. If shareholders are stupid enough to annually hand out tens of millions of dollars to a guy who isn't worth it and twice as much when he proves it and gets himself fired - that's none of the government's business. I don't need the Cato Institute trying to convince me that 'these guys earn so much because they make companies perform better' - with all due respect: nonsense - to feel that way.
Posted by Amsterdam69 at 04/10/2008 @ 3:00pm
JOYFULLSPARK,
I did question CEO's pay, I simply stated that they are not the only level making more than they are worth. And in this context I'm referring to the monetary value, not human worth.
If the formers, or the latters, influence on the companies financial health is not demonstratable, then maybe they shouldn't be there. I was not singling out janitors.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 04/10/2008 @ 3:11pm
Emile, I'm not sure when I ever told you I worked at the level of a janitor. Another preconceived assumption on your part, I guess.
And AMSTERDAM, yes it was us that started anti trust laws, in fact Theodore Roosevelt was instrumental in implementing them. And your also correct when you say we do things more and more like Europe. In fact I consider the rape of Microsoft a few years ago to be a good example. I understand the Europeans sued him themselves recently over the "crime" of controlling too much interest. If I were Gates I would have shut my plants down and left, then watch how fast the gov't thieves backed off. These are money grabs, little else.
Try to think what the world would be like without the Bill Gates' of the world. We wouldn't be talking now, not at this speed anyway.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 04/10/2008 @ 3:22pm
Posted by HAPPY2 04/10/2008 @ 3:12pm
See?....I KNEW Ol'Maverick John didn't REALLY mean to sound like a liberal!
He just needs to APPEAR that way, because he don't know crap about the economy and it's issue #1 with folks!
Thanks, HAPP!
Posted by Mask at 04/10/2008 @ 4:40pm
Try to think what the world would be like without the Bill Gates' of the world. We wouldn't be talking now, not at this speed anyway.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 04/10/2008 @ 3:22pm
The idea that being able to rake in obscene, completely unnecessary amounts of personal wealth is the only thing that motivates people to pursue technological and scientific innovation seems more and more absurd to me. What would the world be like if people everywhere were unburdened by starvation wages, appalling working environments, the ever-impending threat of job loss, etc. and were instead free to produce more knowledge?
I'd like to hear the pro-free market answer to that one.
Posted by joyfulspark at 04/10/2008 @ 4:47pm
We NEED fair trade policies, even some forms of trade protectionism, and labor law reform so that a revived labor movement can lead a revived working class in re-cutting the economic pie to increase the amount of compensation that most of us make, at the expense of the CEO's, bankers and stock brokers.
We NEED to tax capital gains and other forms of financial speculation, i.e., generally socially useless gambling, at a higher rate than actual labor (salary, wages, tips), rather than the other way around.
We NEED to lift the income limit on FICA taxes.
We NEED to raise the income tax rates again on super high incomes, and close as many loopholes as possible. I will admit that while 90% sounds good, it's only pissing in the wind. How about 50-70%?
I do not expect Obama to propose any of these policies, except perhaps in severly watered down form. However, a Congress with a large enough Democratic majority - and a big progressive caucus of Dems, Greens and independents - plus a few fair trade/populist and moderate, pro-labor Republicans might push some of these proposals onto his desk.
The Democrats SHOULD pick up at least 20-30 seats in the House this fall, and if they really worked the 50-state strategy and ran seriously anti-war and economically populist candidates, for the most part, could capture 50 or more. If they only gain 5-12 seats in the midst of a stagflationary recession, a credit crunch, a housing bust AND an unpopular war, running against a 72-year old Republican whose efforts to distinguish himself from George W. Bush appear to require the analytical skills of a whole school of Talmudic scholars to parse the differences, then they might as well turn out the lights and crawl into the dictionary next to the Whig Party (U.S.).
Posted by cka2nd at 04/10/2008 @ 5:00pm
John Edwards failed because his refusal to clearly distinguish himself from Clinton and Obama on some crucial issues, especially going forward in Iraq and single payer health care, meant that the debate became about personality, style and "history" and not about policy, politics and class. As has been noted by some professional commentators, when the policy differences aren't there, it is easier for the media to spike a candidate they don't like for BS reasons.
So, on the one hand, MASK is correct, and on the other, he is missing an important factor in Edwards' fate. Edwards has himself primarily to blame for losing, but the media, which hated him for his economic populism, piled on him over BS issues (his house, his hair, etc.) in order to tear him down. The drumbeat of nasty and silly stories in the media contributed to his fall. In essence, the media helped Edwards finish off Edwards.
It's not unlike what the mainstream media - not even the right-wing media! - did to Howard Dean after "the scream." It's been documented that mainstream media types were crowing in the airport in Iowa the next day over how they had taken him out, while Fox News' reporter on the scene pooh poohed the incident. Not that Dean wasn't his own worst enemy, or that Democratic voters weren't looking for the "MOST ELECTABLE CANDIDATE" (the dummies). But again, even if one factor stands above the rest, it's rarely the only one that brought down one of these guys.
Posted by cka2nd at 04/10/2008 @ 5:17pm
What a poorly written argument for a position with so much merit. Can't the Nation do better than this? And oh yeah, in calculating batting averages you do NOT count strikes...
Posted by Robo at 04/10/2008 @ 5:22pm
Posted by HAPPY2 04/10/2008 @ 5:04pm
So you are against workers getting a living wage and having safe working conditions?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/10/2008 @ 5:24pm
Try to think what the world would be like without the Bill Gates' of the world. We wouldn't be talking now, not at this speed anyway.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 04/10/2008
Yea! My PC might actually work, my employer might not have to have 6 IT folk on payroll. Another case of marketing over design, like the philips screw.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/10/2008 @ 5:25pm
What would the world be like if people everywhere were unburdened by starvation wages, appalling working environments, the ever-impending threat of job loss, etc. and were instead free to produce more knowledge?...
Posted by JOYFULSPARK 04/10/2008 @ 4:47pm
Sounds like what Polygamist Warren Jeffe ran here in Texas....and what Jim Jones ran down in Guyana.......and Daid Koresh in Waco.....or that more-lasting heaven on earth, Cuba!
Posted by HAPPY2 04/10/2008 @ 5:04pm
Christ! What a maroon!
3+3= the cross pollination of variegated leafed hostas.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/10/2008 @ 5:28pm
Posted by HAPPY2 04/10/2008 @ 5:04pm
So you are against workers getting a living wage and having safe working conditions?
Posted by CCCOMFO1 04/10/2008 @ 5:24pm
HAPPY2BEACOWARD has admitted that as long as his stock prices remain high, he will not worry about the working conditions at corporations in which he invests.
He is part of the moral majority, ain't it grand!
He wants a "free" Iraq, but not a free Burma.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/10/2008 @ 5:31pm
Try to think what the world would be like without the Bill Gates' of the world.
Bill Gates did not invent anything. both the computers AND the software upon which his great wealth is based were developed by others.
he also had quite a bit of help from the gov't which gave him large purchase orders.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/10/2008 @ 5:40pm
Posted by HAPPY2 04/10/2008 @ 5:04pm
Wow is this true? Are you really giving moral advice to the rest of us when you are ok with a corporation lashing it's workers as long as your stock prices rise? Are you really that greedy?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/10/2008 @ 5:42pm
Let's re-set our "making money" concept:
Only a relative handful of US Mint employees make money. Everyone else gets money from someone else. Somehow. As we who are not Bu$hCorp insiders too-slowly realize how severely ours has become a fascist nation, we assume and/or pretend we are our own "deciders" as we decide we will follow Our Leader's model, which is impossible if we live and act by our ethics. So we get money any we can. Since we're not clever enough to raid the US Mint, we raid any and every money source where we won't get caught (or think we won't get caught). These sources are inevitably members of our own species. Most of us, however, do not have access to cadres of CPAs, green to gray-bearded MBAs, and savvier-than-thou CEOs, to brainpick, as do Bu$hCorp insiders. So we outsiders turn on, actually, ourselves and ANYone else within reach of our frantic drive for money.
We are now close to barely surviving in this conscienceless culture. That is, those of us who have not become sucked into pretending we can run scams as well as Bu$hCorpians. And very few of us outsiders are mean enough, cruel enough, vindictive enough to come with even miles of those unindicted criminals.
Remember, since the United States of America abandoned the gold standard, all Bu$hCorpians need to do to get more money is, frankly, just (1a) suck up to Bu$hCorp, or (1b) belong to Bu$hCorp (by hook or crook), and The Sacred Him will order those guys at the US Mint to print up as much money as you want. How you spend it, and where you stash it, is your business. And Welcome To The BU$INE$$ Business!.
Finally, referring back to the first few lines of this comment, avoid like the plague, becoming one of those someone elses.
. .
Posted by Lord Nose at 04/10/2008 @ 5:50pm
And AMSTERDAM, yes it was us that started anti trust laws, in fact Theodore Roosevelt was instrumental in implementing them. And your also correct when you say we do things more and more like Europe. In fact I consider the rape of Microsoft a few years ago to be a good example. I understand the Europeans sued him themselves recently over the "crime" of controlling too much interest. If I were Gates I would have shut my plants down and left, then watch how fast the gov't thieves backed off. These are money grabs, little else.
Try to think what the world would be like without the Bill Gates' of the world. We wouldn't be talking now, not at this speed anyway.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 04/10/2008 @ 3:22pm
You are more or less correct - the European Commission did not sue Microsoft, they fined Microsoft some hundreds of millions of euros; there is a difference, of course. But you couldn't use this as an example of the United States becoming more like Europe, I think, since you guys went after Microsoft first and we just followed your lead. Now, doesn't it make you feel good to know that your country is still the leader of the free world when it comes to important issues like going after Bill Gates' money? ;-)
In fact, Western Europe has become a lot more like the United States than the other way around, with so much privitization of public services over the past decade and the slow but steady dismantling of the welfare state. Even the Swedes have had enough of the stifling egalitarianism which had become one of Sweden's trademarks since World War II (for a good analysis of the Swedish system, see P.J. O'Rourke's Eat the rich). And the U.K. looks more like the U.S. every time I go there. Which reminds me: I should start packing. My plane to England will depart in nine hours, and it would be nice to get some sleep before I head for the airport.
Later.
Posted by Amsterdam69 at 04/10/2008 @ 5:53pm
Ms Goodrich's thoughts on this subject of CEO compensation seem more revealing of her contempt for the intelligence of the american people than anything else. Shameful.
An interesting article on the art of disagreeing with someone can be found here: http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
Posted by jgoodrich at 04/10/2008 @ 6:54pm
Sounds like what Polygamist Warren Jeffe ran here in Texas....and what Jim Jones ran down in Guyana.......and Daid Koresh in Waco.....or that more-lasting heaven on earth, Cuba!
Posted by HAPPY2 04/10/2008 @ 5:04pm
What have you been smoking and where can I get some?
Posted by joyfulspark at 04/10/2008 @ 7:12pm
Posted by JOYFULSPARK 04/10/2008 @ 7:12pm
He hasn't been smoking anything he has been drinking the Happy juice.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/10/2008 @ 7:19pm
freiheit, so it's just not an issue, eh? at what point would it be an issue?
just curious.
Posted by darladoon at 04/10/2008 @ 7:23pm
happy, do you believe that workers ought to be able to organize, and thus have a say in what sort of minimal working conditions they can accept, what sort of pay conditions they can accept, what benefits, etc, etc? if not, then you really serve no function in this debate.
Posted by darladoon at 04/10/2008 @ 7:38pm
I support some level of mandated "working conditions" (in the US only) since quite often, some businesses would take on more risks in order to be at a competitive advantage. Labor is mobile....they can leave any employers that don't pay the `going rate' or choose to learn new skills which may require taking even lower pay while apprenticing!
Posted by HAPPY2 04/10/2008 @ 7:33pm
"Lower pay while apprenticing" is license to keep lots of people stuck in low wages. I've seen these proposals before. Usually they mean a non-HS graduate can be paid a "sub-minimum wage" for some reasonable time period: a year or so. But no one can enforce what the year is, because as soon as they finish 7 or 8 months, they get churned out of job "A", and when they get to job "B", the "sub-minimum" clock restarts at day one.
I'll give you a real example that involves people with documentable skill. In Michigan, teacher tenure laws were modified under Engler so that a teacher had up to 4 years in a district to qualify for tenure status (it can be conferred in less time). We now have several thousand teachers with 10 or more years of experience who haven't earned tenure because districts dismiss them before they earn tenure status because (drumroll please) the law doesn't require one district to recognize time served in a previous district if a teacher hasn't earned tenure (though once you earn tenure, other districts must recognize that). A polite term for that might be "institutionalized wage stagnation." I view it as perhaps a couple of steps above sharecropping.
Posted by Egalitare at 04/10/2008 @ 8:01pm
Posted by HAPPY2 04/10/2008 @ 5:00pm
Hey, YOU were the one who said McCain was putting on a show about "concern about CEO salaries".
Glad to see you admitting the man is a phoney.
Posted by Mask at 04/10/2008 @ 8:06pm
Posted by CKA2ND 04/10/2008 @ 5:17pm
CKA, if "the Media" "hated" economic populism....
would it make sense that they WOULDN'T destroy Obama, and would STILL be trying to build up Hillary...rather than running stories and punditry on how she should quit?
For that matter, if "the Media" had the power to "get Edwards out" with some trivialities....wouldn't they have gotten OBAMA out on some trivialities too?!!?!??
Posted by Mask at 04/10/2008 @ 8:08pm
Posted by HAPPY2 04/10/2008 @ 7:33p
Problem is all employers would be forced to lower prices in order to compete. So soon enough employer would be giving employees nothing in order to do the work to compete with the other ones who are doing it and at the point everyone would offer nothing and if it were a for a product that people can't do without there is no way to stop the company from doing what it does. That's the problem with pure capitalism. If you don't control wages ALL companies will stop paying a living wage and the only way to be able to compete will be to offer your employees dirt.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/10/2008 @ 8:17pm
Posted by HAPPY2 04/10/2008 @ 7:33p
That's the problem. The pure capitalism you want with no rule no protection for employers or employees is self defeating. To make money people will lie, cheat and steal. Some will exploit their fellow man. If we stop mandating protection for employees AND employers that will get back to the times where the majority of people in urban areas live in ghettos and tenements because they can't afford houses at the jobs where they work 16 hours a day. Children will be put to work and injured on the job.
Also what is this in America crap? What do Mexicans not deserve job protection? Do only Americans matter?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/10/2008 @ 8:23pm
Posted by FREIHEIT 04/10/2008 @ 8:31pm
I don't have any debt. So yes I work my employer.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/10/2008 @ 8:32pm
Posted by FREIHEIT 04/10/2008 @ 8:31pm
A living wage is enough to pay for a place to live and food to eat. Those are the things you need to live. That's what I call a living wage.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/10/2008 @ 8:34pm
Posted by FREIHEIT 04/10/2008 @ 8:31pm
I will put the book on my list of things to read. However the argument I made still stands to the point that look at companies long before they were governed. Companies used slaves because it kept labor costs low. Why is that not possible now all of a sudden? When did a lack of governing companies lead to anything positive. When there was no protection in place employers killed union members. Payed barely anything and no one stopped them until someone stepped in to say these are the mandates you must reach.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/10/2008 @ 8:37pm
Posted by FREIHEIT 04/10/2008 @ 8:36pm |
I'm not describing the US as pure capitalism. We are a mix of socialism and capitalism. The pure capitalism is to what Happy wants not what the US is. Sorry I must have not worded that well.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/10/2008 @ 8:38pm
Posted by FREIHEIT 04/10/2008 @ 8:39pm
I see your point. However I still feel there should be some sort of mandate on wages to protect employees. I don't think protection should extend only to employees I think employers need to be protected also. I just think history has shown that greedy people will always use the system to make more money if there is no protection set up within the system.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/10/2008 @ 8:42pm
Posted by FREIHEIT 04/10/2008 @ 8:43pm
That's not living that's living comfortable. I think it is the role of an employer to provide a wage that's enough to buy food even if it's cheap food and a living space that is adequate to survive. Which both of those are easily I think understood. It's not based on what you want it's based on what you NEED. You don't NEED Whole Foods. You can live in a studio in downtown LA for 900 a month.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/10/2008 @ 8:49pm
Posted by FREIHEIT 04/10/2008 @ 8:43pm
I think where we are differing is our understand of the word need. You are saying a living wage includes what you WANT I am saying that a living wage only incorporates what you NEED to survive.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/10/2008 @ 8:50pm
I want my place to live in San Francisco to be at Scott and Steiner. And I want my food to be from Whole Foods.
Posted by FREIHEIT 04/10/2008 @ 8:43pm | ignore this person
Your crassly hyperbolic comment is definitely not a DH6 (thank you Ms. Goodrich for posting that article). CCC described a living wage about as plainly as possible; there are people in this country--and many more abroad--whose wages from multiple jobs barely allow them to live in the cheapest housing available and eat the cheapest food possible. That is not dignity.
Also what is this in America crap? What do Mexicans not deserve job protection? Do only Americans matter?
Posted by CCCOMFO1 04/10/2008 @ 8:23pm | ignore this person
Hear, hear. Beyond that, the lack of standards for wages and working conditions anywhere else around the globe only serves as an incentive for American corporations to (a) overlook what little we have of protections for workers here, (b) fight tooth and nail against any new protections, and (c) outsource as much work as possible to countries where they can maximize profits by not having to deal with any of those things in the first place. Caring about labor conditions abroad is not only a matter of empathy, but also of drawing connections to labor conditions here.
Posted by joyfulspark at 04/10/2008 @ 8:59pm
I want my place to live in San Francisco to be at Scott and Steiner
there's no such thing as scott and steiner. they run parallel.
Posted by darladoon at 04/10/2008 @ 9:26pm
Posted by FREIHEIT 04/10/2008 @ 9:01pm
I see your point Freiheit and it does alter the way I look at things. It is a very slippery slope defining what others need as opposed to what they. I see your knowledge and experience with this matter and I respect your intelligence. However I think there has to be some definition of wages in order to protect workers. Why is it that some people can work 3 jobs and barely make enough to survive?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/10/2008 @ 9:28pm
Posted by FREIHEIT 04/10/2008 @ 9:01pm
I see your point Freiheit and it does alter the way I look at things. It is a very slippery slope defining what others need as opposed to what they. I see your knowledge and experience with this matter and I respect your intelligence. However I think there has to be some definition of wages in order to protect workers. Why is it that some people can work 3 jobs and barely make enough to survive?
Posted by CCCOMFO1 04/10/2008 @ 9:28pm
Got time warped.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/10/2008 @ 9:29pm
Mr. "Freiheit,"
Wants are not the same thing as needs. It makes no difference whether we discuss our own needs or other people's needs. Everybody's needs are more important than everybody's wants. This is not a controversial claim.
Here is an example: I want a new Rolls Royce. I need to breathe. If I were to agree to exchange my right to breathe for a nice new Rolls Royce, then you could call me an idiot. And you would be right. I could protest that you are some kind of "elitist" and that your attitude is the "antithesis of liberty" because you presume to tell me what I need. But I would still be an idiot.
Posted by JakobFabian at 04/10/2008 @ 10:40pm
Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 04/10/2008 @ 10:40pm
What about this example?--
Is a week's vacation a "need" or a "want"?
Many would say a "need" due to simple need for rest & recreation.
Is a week's vacation at a 2000 square foot beach house at Hilton Head, SC or Martha's Vineyard or Catalina Island a "need" or a "want"?
Most would say a "want", right?
But is JUST sitting around the house for a week a "vacation"? Just, staying at home, watching TV, sleeping late maybe, and then 7 days later going back to the drudgery?
Do you feel that human beings should have no right, due to lack of excess income, to enjoy the mountains or an amusement park or the beach for a few days? Should the poor simply get 7 days work-free (paid of course) and no means of ...seeing the country or visiting New York City or go deep sea fishing or go to an art museum in St. Louis?
So...how generous with "need" are you willing to be?
Posted by Mask at 04/10/2008 @ 10:52pm
freiheit, there is no such thing as 'scott and steiner'. they run parallel.
Posted by darladoon at 04/10/2008 @ 11:17pm
I just wonder if you will consider that your belief in defining "living" for others is the root of totalitarianism?
how is the fact of an elected government providing enough benefits to the people, so that they can survive (not necessarily excel, but just minimally survive) a "root" cause of totalitarinism? if a government doesn't regulate the actual behavior of its people, then it is not technically totalitarian. you are massively exagerrating the core concept of a welfare state.
by and large, most human beings share the equivalent of socially liberal views. a majority of americans support universal health care, for instance, as well as increased funding for education.
Posted by darladoon at 04/10/2008 @ 11:26pm
Labor is mobile....they can leave any employers that don't pay the `going rate' or choose to learn new skills which may require taking even lower pay while apprenticing!
Posted by HAPPY2 04/10/2008 @ 7:33pm
I can translate this for you.
"let them eat cake"
it is the statement of one who is completely out of touch how people live and work. of someone who has never looked for a job in vain. in short an immature twit.
and I don't believe this captain of the market this poster indulges himself here. it is in other woids a shuck.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/10/2008 @ 11:48pm
i think a lot of conservatives here often forget that millions of americans depend on the government for assistance. without the government, there is no hope.
so, when state, local and federal governments experience widespread, skyrocketing deficits, the most vulnerable members of society get hit pretty bad. in san francisco, our mayor was "forced" to cut city services, in the form of nurse assitants, for hundreds of residents with debilitating illnesses.
to those of us who are healthy, and financially stable, this sort of experience is often well-removed from our daily lives.
my point is, to intellectually support any argument which seeks to limit the means by which vulnerable people can not only survive, but possibly excel, is at least minimally cruel. if there are achievable scenarios (i.e. universal health care) that would benefit a majority of people, then why do conservatives oppose them?
to me, there is no intellectually or morally justifiable argument in support of reducing or limiting the ability of a government to provide for a majority of its people. the only people calling for more and more tax cuts are a slim minority of (primarily white and primarily wealthy) republicans. the vast majority of americans would contribute more in taxes (whatever taxes they might be) in return for a stronger, more stable, and more sustainable social safety net. if you disagree with this claim, then you are only speaking in your own self-interest, and not in the interests of the majority.
Posted by darladoon at 04/11/2008 @ 12:04am
maybe we can create something close to "pure"!
Posted by HAPPY2 04/11/2008 @ 12:08am
scott mcclellan was able to produce the purest of crap........
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/11/2008 @ 12:35am
Posted by HAPPY2 04/11/2008 @ 12:08am
I contend that pure capitalism or close to pure as just as corrupted and negative as pure communism.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/11/2008 @ 02:13am
Corporationists have sieized every aspect of Our Democratic Society. They have effectively killed the Free Market ('who killed the electic Car')Silenced the Free Press and Gagged Free Speech. Right to privacy is only for those who Work for them (executive Priviledge/ wiretapping/internet monitoring & censorship). Innocent until Proven Guilty is a facade (Pre Hire Drug screening). Habius Corpus-depends, if it works to their benefit (Quick guilty, or lingering to keep silent).Taxation without Representation ('00 &'04 elections, W's tax breaks for the Wealthy & Inc's)......America has become a Caste System for AmericaNs.
Posted by Purple girl at 04/11/2008 @ 06:13am
JOYFULSPARK,
OK so you want a world without struggle. That would be nice, but its unrealistic.
And the free market answer to your question is: We'd have an awful lot of very smart, very hungry people.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 04/11/2008 @ 07:31am
osted by DARLADOON 04/11/2008 @ 12:04am | ignore this person
some fine posts, Darla
Posted by emile duBois at 04/11/2008 @ 07:54am
I agree that executive pay is way out of line. The CEO of Prudential got over $22 million total pay package for last year. But one of the problems is the high pay of trustees! For minimal work the Prudential trustees get over $160,000 total package, and of course expenses. It looks to me as if they willingly vote the big pay of the CEO to thank him for THEIR high pay!
Posted by Gabriel at 04/11/2008 @ 08:50am
I just wonder if you will consider that your belief in defining "living" for others is the root of totalitarianism?
Posted by FREIHEIT 04/10/2008 @ 9:01pm | ignore this person
No, I'm not willing to consider setting standards for basic human needs as "totalitarianism," and I'm shocked that the definition of "freedom" in this country is so far gone that those standards are considered radical concepts. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."
Is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights a "totalitarian" document?
Posted by joyfulspark at 04/11/2008 @ 11:34am
if i were making 50 million a year while my workers made 10/hr.,
i would feel like a total asshole.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/11/2008 @ 11:49am
I'm all about personal responsibility and all those other buzz terms. That's why I think all people should have jobs that are available, pay wages on par with cost of living, and treat their workers fairly. Sadly, we are seeing a situation where such jobs are far less available than you would expect in the Land of Opportunity.
I would actually argue that the greatest cause of poverty in the developing world are centuries of greed exploitation by foreign powers, which continue to this day. The armies of Britain, France, the U.S., and all the rest of those glorious empires may have retreated long ago (or not, in places like Iraq) but corporations have taken up their legacy, often going into countries without paying taxes or giving their workers enough money to eat, and polluting the environment to their heart's content.
It is hard to argue that collectivism is a problem in developing nations when many third-world governments have very few resources to provide their constituents and when entities like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have been successfully pushing for deregulation and the slashing of state-sponsored services all around the world for decades. Nonetheless, I'd like to hear on what basis you make that claim, if you're talking about almost any country other than China or Cuba.
Posted by joyfulspark at 04/11/2008 @ 12:29pm
How about forgetting taxes on excess compensation, and restore the free market? It's not free now because of administrative regulations that freeze shareholders out of meaningful oversight of their investment. How about restoring a meaningful right of shareholders to select board members (who determine compensation), and management? The current system is rigged for management to pay itself whatever it wants with its selected board of directors members. Have you participated in a corporate board selection before as a shareholder? Of course you haven't, you've only been given a slate of management-chosen directors to vote yay or nay. That's ridiculous. Board members should be selected as shareholder meetings by floor nominations and votes from the shareholders, NOT MANAGEMENT.
Do this, and you won't need to regulate compensation.
Posted by Gus at 04/11/2008 @ 12:45pm
Posted by JOYFULSPARK 04/11/2008 @ 12:29pm
What about Mugabe in Zimbabwe? What about the tribal wars of Rwanda and Kenya?
These came WELL after colonial departure...in fact, many came after improvements in those countries had occurred, but local governments changed hands or were incompetent failures...and few had "big corporations" to blame things on. How long does the excuse of "colonial legacy" extend?
Posted by Mask at 04/11/2008 @ 1:27pm
JOYSPARK, Everyone in the world DOES NOT have the right to the things expoused in that declaration. They have the right to the OPPORTUNITY for those things, and then only if they can get it without restricting anothers ability to get it for his or herself and/or their families. Is the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION a Totalitarian Document? On its surface, no. But since economic & political rights are intertwined, in order to create the kind of world the document envisions, a country would have to BECOME a Totalitarian state, sooner or later.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 04/11/2008 @ 1:35pm
Do you really believe that a majority of citizens are dependent upon the federal government for survival?
i believe the majority of right wingers seriously believed (and many continue to believe) that the federal government, in the form of the military-industrial complex AND the corporate media, protected the citizens of this country from attack by terrorists, by instituting a plethora of radical policies, both military and political. so, yes, a majority of people were, and continue to be, dependent on the government for survival (according to your own cadre of idealogues).
Posted by darladoon at 04/11/2008 @ 7:07pm
it's really, truly amusing reading marybretbard and freiheit attempt to intellectually weasel their way out of caring for the most vulnerable members of our own society. ironically, many of their ilk consider themselves "patriots", depsite their disdain for their own fellow citizens' ability to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" and just get a job.
i took a bike ride today. along the way, i made a concerted effort to locate all of the public drinking fountains. every single fountain was on public property. every single fountain.
and that says a lot, doesn't it?
if everything were privatized, even national parks wouldn't provide restrooms or water fountains. at least, theoretically speaking. and since everything on this blog is "theoretically speaking," why do conservatives oppose even public water fountains on theoretical grounds?
Posted by darladoon at 04/11/2008 @ 7:11pm
on some level, we are all responbile for each other. if you sincerely believe that every individual should support him or herself, then you must also consider how difficult it is for some individuals to support themelves.
25% of military veterans have PTSD, and yet they languish in depression, suicide, financial uncertainty, etc.
how do republicans deny veterans everything they need?
why has mccain refused to pledge support for a new veterans' bill authored by jim webb?
you think it's because he's psychotic like freiheit and marybretbard and liberty and jomamma?
Posted by darladoon at 04/11/2008 @ 7:14pm
to billions of people languishing in poverty (all exclusively in collectivist societies I might add).
BY FREIHEIT
are you sure about that?
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/11/2008 @ 7:39pm
Frosty, Goodness, whatever you make now, it may as well be $50M compared to billions of people languishing in poverty (all exclusively in collectivist societies I might add).
although true (i made $17,000 last year -- i am VERY rich), what does this half to do with anything?
What would your earning less do for them actually?
well, i think if the workers made some more and the ceo less, our society would benefit greatly
You say "feelings".
some people have them, you know.
Sadly, that's what most of you here are basing your comments on. "Feelings" about this or that.
well, it sure feels shitty to work for 7.50/hr while the boss gets $250 million.
Frosty, go earn $50M!
not until we reestablish REAL money.
I am sincere in my belief you would do a lot of good for others with that kind of money.
why, thank you.
Cease with the zero sum view of wealth.
i hold not that view. however, one could easily live on say, $1,000,000 and SPREAD the "wealth".
Posted by FREIHEIT 04/11/2008 @ 12:02pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/11/2008 @ 7:50pm
Posted by FREIHEIT 04/11/2008 @ 11:31am
No my answer to that is because we have checks on wages. If we got rid of them then we would have to see what the wages would drop to and where our poverty level would go to. I think the reason we have 10% is because we have checks on wages. So the example she gave is a horrible example and so far proves my point even more places that have some sort of wage checking system do well. Places like North Korea who don't give a damn about their people don't do well.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/11/2008 @ 8:50pm
There is no other LEGAL options and we know that all leftwingnuts are strong on the RULE OF LAW!
and the rightwingnuts don't just change laws, as they see fit?
Posted by darladoon at 04/11/2008 @ 11:59pm
No, you wouldn't. If you were capable of delivering the productive effort needed to justify earning $50 million a year, you would understand the value of what you do and the value of what a $10/ hr employee does, and you would understand why it was rational.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 04/11/2008 @ 12:58pm
rational?
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/12/2008 @ 01:13am
A witty child in the dreamland.
There's a witty child where a beautiful dreamland presents the profile of a delicate hedge, over a feeling, in the care of a blackbird; and there's also that sunset, the timid contour of a glittering flame.
Francesco Sinibaldi
Posted by Sinibaldi at 04/12/2008 @ 3:12pm
JGOODRICH, Care to comment on that?
Comment on what? Your sort of unrelated debate with others about something that is not in my post?
By saying that workers should earn more and the CEO less you ARE contending wealth is a zero sum game. If you believe otherwise you should have said that you want the workers to earn more and the CEOs to earn more.
I wish you could look in the mirror and examine the roots of your classist beliefs. Socialists have used this devisive tool against societies for over a century. They create an environment of victimization and self pity that slowly poison iniative and self reliance. Their goal is to destroy the individual and make the state supreme.
As I pointed out in an earlier post, CEO compensation and other envy-the-rich-and-think-about-how-miserable you are and how unfair it all it schemes are all a red herring. The purpose is to distract us from comprehending what is being done to all of us by the Federal Reserve and our Federal government.
These are opinions. You are not giving a link to a piece which states socialists want to make the state supreme and to destroy the individual. I don't see how we can find out about the inner beliefs of "socialists". In any case, I suspect that different socialists have very different inner views of what socialism is supposed to achieve.
In the next paragraph you evoke a world where the only reason to worry about large income differences is worker envy and where the real enemy is the government. An alternative opinion might point out that looking at countries which do have those very large income differences suggests that they are banana republics where the rich live in small armed conclaves while the poor masses roam the streets. That, too, is an opinion, but taken from the other extreme of possible stories we might tell.
Posted by jgoodrich at 04/12/2008 @ 4:33pm
some fine posts, Darla
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 04/11/2008 @ 07:54am
i'll second that one. darla's a-rollin'......
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/12/2008 @ 6:05pm
By saying that workers should earn more and the CEO less you ARE contending wealth is a zero sum game. If you believe otherwise you should have said that you want the workers to earn more and the CEOs to earn more.
how about a proportion that is fair to each? 100 to 1, 10 to 1, 45.5 to 1? not 17,564,354 to 1.
I wish you could look in the mirror and examine the roots of your classist beliefs.
classist? all i ask is that the greediest of the greedy tone it down.
Socialists have used this devisive tool against societies for over a century.
socialist? well, i do like taxes to help maintain infrastructure and the environment. is it socialist to be upset that my taxes buy bombs? i like sharing. that's not a problem. how about "nicelist"?
They create an environment of victimization and self pity that slowly poison iniative and self reliance.
i feel not victimized. however, i do see from my little chair here that some people can truly consider themselves victims of other's greed. i pity not myself. i'm quite self-reliant. sharing my "wealth" to pay for helping my sick brothers and sisters is great. so is paying for chemical plant inspectors. one can only be self reliant so far. are you capable of inspecting a nuclear power plant?
as to initiative, i don't see how sharing can stifle such a thing.
Their goal is to destroy the individual and make the state supreme.
heavy, dude.
As I pointed out in an earlier post, CEO compensation and other envy
envy? like a wabbit wonce said, "you don't know me very well". promissory note envy? hahahaha
-the-rich-and-think-about-how-miserable you are
miserable? me? only when the lions play. life is great.
and how unfair it all it schemes
aren't their laws that act in the name of "fairness", such as those against stealing? and aren't they enforced by the tax-funded state? want you no police?
are all a red herring.
i prefer raspberries. (soon!)
The purpose is to distract us from comprehending what is being done to all of us by the Federal Reserve and our Federal government.
hey, while we've got to obtain our food using worthless promissory notes, at least the could be distributed more fairly. IT'S THE CEO WHO IS MAKING GUZILLIONS OF RUBBER NOTES AT THE EXPENSE OF IGNORING THE CONDITIONS OF HER WORKERS, BE THEY IN INDONESIA, INDIANA OR INDIA WHO NEEDS TO LOOK INTO THE MIRROR AND SEE WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE PICTURE. I PROPOSE NOT THAT SALARIES BE REGULATED (at least not at the top; the lower rung does need some sort of anti-exploitation regulation), BUT THAT THOSE MAKING THESE INSANE SALARIES THINK ABOUT HOW THEY COULD BE LESS WASTEFUL, LESS GREEDY, AND ULTIMATELY MORE GENEROUS. and the easiest place for a CEO to start is with her workers.
Stop the losing politics of envy and WAKE UP!!!!!
i envy no one. i am quite awake, thank you very much.
Posted by FREIHEIT 04/12/2008 @ 11:54am
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/12/2008 @ 6:32pm
weigh in on my contention [opinion] that discussion of CEO compensation is immaterial in light of current Federal Reserve activities?
Posted by FREIHEIT 04/12/2008 @ 5:45pm
hey, while we've got to obtain our food using worthless promissory notes, at least the could be distributed more fairly. IT'S THE CEO WHO IS MAKING GUZILLIONS OF RUBBER NOTES AT THE EXPENSE OF IGNORING THE CONDITIONS OF HER WORKERS, BE THEY IN INDONESIA, INDIANA OR INDIA WHO NEEDS TO LOOK INTO THE MIRROR AND SEE WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE PICTURE. I PROPOSE NOT THAT SALARIES BE REGULATED (at least not at the top; the lower rung does need some sort of anti-exploitation regulation), BUT THAT THOSE MAKING THESE INSANE SALARIES THINK ABOUT HOW THEY COULD BE LESS WASTEFUL, LESS GREEDY, AND ULTIMATELY MORE GENEROUS. and the easiest place for a CEO to start is with her workers.
btw the federal reserve system is insane. we need money based on something. i think a basket of globally needed commodities is a good idea. fire up the presses!
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/12/2008 @ 6:37pm
Didn't anyone esle notice that as CEO and upper management wages rose HealthCare became "too expensive" for companies to carry for the day to day worker..... As CEO pay rose jobs were cut more and more. Till were here 8.00 hr, 32 hour weeks.....
Posted by Smurf40 at 04/12/2008 @ 7:34pm
From the title "Supersize This" to "If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you." it is clear to me your opinion is CEO's are paid too much. And you believe the corporate/shareholder relationship games the system in favor of the rich.
To clarify, the point I was trying to make is that what we observe does not support the idea that the markets for CEOs work well. The markets appear to be at most imperfectly competitive. There is too much unavailable information and too much evidence that performance and pay are not strongly correlated with each other.
But, in light of your 4:33pm comments, I doubt I'll get the insight I'd hoped for from you regarding the Federal Reserve. Any leftist who can be quoted as stating, "I suspect that different socialists have very different inner views of what socialism is supposed to achieve" can't really be honest about the dangers of central banking either.
There are some not-so-great aspects about the way the Federal Reserve is operated, true. But what would you have in the place of a central bank? Or do you suggest that no monetary policy will ever be used? My guess is that we'd then be much more vulnerable to what foreign central banks do. (I haven't followed this particular debate so my apologies if I misunderstood the point.)
Posted by jgoodrich at 04/12/2008 @ 8:37pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 04/14/2008 @ 08:58am
i've asked for know wage controls (at least at the top).
i naοvely hope the CEOS will limit their own pay in the search for fairness.
or have they no shame?
here, look at bill gates house:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/tech/billgate/gates.htm
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/14/2008 @ 10:20am
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 04/11/2008 @ 11:21am | ignore this person
Interesting. Where did you get your numbers MBB? Just make them up?
I notice that you list poverty as lowest in 'Scandinavia', which isn't actually 'a country'. It's a collection of countries...with the following interesting traits...
The highest rate of taxation of any of the developed nations...with taxation routinely over 50% of GDP.
Universal, governemnt subsidized health care.
Carbon taxes to fight polution.
And...you guessed it...legally mandated minimum 5 weeks paid vacations.
Very high levels of social welfare.
A very strong commitment to gay rights, reproductive rights, and labor rights.
Family leave on the order of 1 to 2 years with 80% pay.
Posted by Lillian at 04/14/2008 @ 3:59pm
Hmmm...highest rate of taxation...yet the lowest rate of poverty.
Health care, time off, commitment to green, gay rights...why...how very liberal of them.
Posted by Lillian at 04/14/2008 @ 4:01pm
Oh...and look...Scandinavian countries doing so well...with the lowest rates of poverty (according to MBB) and yet...here they are...actively taking steps to scrutinize and limit executive compensation and make sure it's legally tied to performance. Imagine that!
http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto032520081537595430&pa ge=2
Posted by Lillian at 04/14/2008 @ 4:07pm