A question, CEO pay versus regular worker pay ?

[bUU]

A. I see no problem with it existing or widening, thus I see how reason to not allow it to continue. B. I see no problem with the change, thus I see no reason to try and reverse it.

Of course, the problem is that a widening gap means the number in favor, because they benefit from it, is shrinking while the number of those opposed, because they're victims of it, are skyrocketing.

C. I see no humane or justice consideration in the discussion at all, thus see nothing to address.

We'll have to agree to disagree about this. Such considerations are so evident as to be practically undeniable, so there's no practical response to your denial.

 

[marko]

Seems to me, arguing the shortcomings of capitalism on a forum largely inhabited by self-made millionaires (and hopefuls) is going to be a hard sell.

I don't think being a millionaire means that one must necessarily abhor humane consideration and justice. Bill Gates comes to mind as someone who acknowledges a responsibility to parlay affluence into a force for positive change in places where our world has grievously failed with regard to humane consideration and justice. Warren Buffet has directed millions to advancing the rights of and protection of girls and women.

My point was that your arguments are largely falling on deaf ears as many here are beneficiaries of the capitalist system you feel is flawed.

The self-made millionaires here on this forum are not in the same class as Gates or Buffett and, I suspect, many just really don't have 'humane consideration and justice' as something high on their priorities at this point in their lives especially if were to impact their personal ability to stay retired comfortably.

I certainly don't.

Having said that, I'm going to unsubscribe from this thread for now and tend to things more important to me.

 

[bUU]

My point was that your arguments are largely falling on deaf ears as many here are beneficiaries of the capitalist system you feel is flawed.

I have more faith in the capacity for humane consideration, compassion, and the sense of fair play of the casual readers of this forum than you seem to be willing to give them credit for.

 

[marko]

I have more faith in the capacity for humane consideration, compassion, and the sense of fair play of the casual readers of this forum than you seem to be willing to give them credit for.

Carry on then.

 

[flintnational]

I care greatly about the plight of my fellow man. And, as stated eloquently below by Milton Friedman, I therefore embrace capitalism and free trade with all of their warts and shortcomings. (Friedman's interview with Donohue is linked above)

" In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty that you are talking about, the only cases in recorded history are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worst off, it's exactly in the kind of societies that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear, there is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system. "

 

[copyright1997reloaded]

I have more faith in the capacity for humane consideration, compassion, and the sense of fair play of the casual readers of this forum than you seem to be willing to give them credit for.

Your desire for 'fair play' (as you see it) is meaningless in terms of how much someone is paid by the stock holders of a company. This is the fundamental aspect of your thinking that I disagree with.

I want people who start companies and create products to believe that they can get filthy rich by doing so. Why? Because it is that fundamental (perhaps ruthlessness) aspect that results in increased standards of living over the long run through productivity and innovation.

Does that make me have less consideration or compassion as you? Well, perhaps in your eyes...

I would rather have an unjust, not always fair, not always considerate, not always compassionate system where the greedy rich unwittingly help to raise the standard of living, cure terrible diseases, and which result in many living relative lives of leisure than a fair, considerate, compassionate systems in which everyone eventually lives every day just trying to get enough food to eat.

Adam Smith recognized this so long ago: “It is not from the benevolence of the Butcher, the Brewer or the Baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest” . I fear that we as a society continue to forget these truths.

 

[mamadogmamacat]

Your desire for 'fair play' (as you see it) is meaningless in terms of how much someone is paid by the stock holders of a company. This is the fundamental aspect of your thinking that I disagree with.

I want people who start companies and create products to believe that they can get filthy rich by doing so. Why? Because it is that fundamental (perhaps ruthlessness) aspect that results in increased standards of living over the long run through productivity and innovation.

Does that make me have less consideration or compassion as you? Well, perhaps in your eyes...

I would rather have an unjust, not always fair, not always considerate, not always compassionate system where the greedy rich unwittingly help to raise the standard of living, cure terrible diseases, and which result in many living relative lives of leisure than a fair, considerate, compassionate systems in which everyone eventually lives every day just trying to get enough food to eat.

Adam Smith recognized this so long ago: “It is not from the benevolence of the Butcher, the Brewer or the Baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest” . I fear that we as a society continue to forget these truths.

+1000
As the granddaughter of a freedom fighter who knew what it was like to resist a govt that imposed equal outcomes rather than equal opportunities (and thank God he had this country to escape to), I hope our nation's leadership will continue, in the main, to never forget these truths, even if so many of our fellow citizens do forget.

 

[CardsFan]

" In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty that you are talking about, the only cases in recorded history are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worst off, it's exactly in the kind of societies that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear, there is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system. "

^^This.

As a society we can only achieve the altruistic goal of helping everyone when there is a segment of wealth that can be directed to that goal by compassionate folks that have more than they can use.... Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, Gates, Buffett (I'll leave Zuckerberg off THAT list, at least for now).

Now they are all considered benefactors, but in the earlier stage of their wealth creation each was considered a bloodsucking capitalist, at least by some.

And for some that have been posting on this thread, I truly resent being told that MY morals are not the same as YOUR morals, and therefore are inferior and not worthy of consideration .

 

[ERD50]

... While they still pay their CEO an obscene amount of money compared to their regular workers, ...

That's a judgment call. I think it's been touched on here, but who is to say what the "right" number is, or if there even is a right number? And as I know has been mentioned, how is this any different from a movie star, pop star, or athlete?

Is that ratio going back to 1965 any different for athletes or pop stars? As I recall, baseball players didn't make much at all back then, even the top players.


The ratio is a number, that's all. Who is to say if it is good, bad, indifferent? Who's to say if the number actually reflects anything meaningful (numbers don't always tell the story)?


Now, I do think there may be a problem with the BOD setting CEO pay, and a little too cozy of a relationship to be a true free market. But the world's not a perfect place. But that should be the focus then ( a free market), IMO, not just some number.



-ERD50

 

[USGrant1962]

As no one has yet to explain to me why it's "bad" for a CEO to make a lot more than the lowest level worker (other than threats of low paid people deciding violence is the answer to this non-problem), I see no problem at all.

It is only bad if you subscribe to the fixed pie fallacy of economics.

 

[Letj]

You are right. The comparison was only relevant in relation to Letj's concern that the CEO compensation impacted "the price of products"... my guess is that if the CEO's total comp package is $25 million then and excessive part of the compensation impacts product price by perhaps 1/2 of 1% or less, which is unlikely to impact customer decisions as to whether or not to buy that company's product.

I agree the impact is minimal but I still believe that this kind of pay is unjustified.

 

[rodi]

Thanks for the interesting discussion.