• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Any effort to reduce inequality would make us all poorer? Nonsense.

Zalatix

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Messages
3,228
Reaction score
662
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
CEO pay has gone up more than 14 fold from 1970 to now, and not because of their compensation equals their marginal output.

It's more because of rent-seeking.

The Pay of Corporate Executives and Financial Professionals as Evidence of Rents in Top 1 Percent Incomes | Economic Policy Institute

Furthermore, the claim that cutting CEO compensation (and thus rent-seeking) would make the world poorer, is nonsense. For instance Harvard ivory tower-dweller Greg Mankiw states:

http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mankiw/files/defending_the_one_percent_0.pdf

Then, one day, this egalitarian utopia is disturbed by an entrepreneur with an idea for a new product. Think of the entrepreneur as Steve Jobs as he develops the iPod, J.K. Rowling as she writes her Harry Potter books, or Steven Spielberg as he directs his blockbuster movies...

There's one fatal mistake in this theory. JK Rowling chose to stay in England despite their high taxes because she had a moral obligation to their welfare system.

So the going theory that reducing wealth inequality will make the world poorer because we'll have fewer Steve Jobs and JK Rowlings, is nonsense.

I've got another example to refute that, too: Linus Torvalds, the maker of GNU/Linux. If Steve Jobns and Bill Gates were to just up and quit because they couldn't become a multi billionaire then we'd have those resources going to Linux instead. Which is distributed for free. So much for marginal compensation.

Then there's the final problem of the theory of marginal compensation and its attempts to justify income inequality: if income inequality keeps rising indefinitely, then the 1% will find that nobody else can buy their products or services anymore. Then who will compensate them at all?
 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
So the CEO makes less, the stockholders will make more. Really has nothing to do with the lowest people on the totem pole.
 

Zalatix

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Messages
3,228
Reaction score
662
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
So the CEO makes less, the stockholders will make more. Really has nothing to do with the lowest people on the totem pole.
But it has devastating consequences for the CEO and the stockholders when the lowest people on the totem pole - namely, the 99% - no longer have discretionary money to spend.
 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
But it has devastating consequences for the CEO and the stockholders when the lowest people on the totem pole - namely, the 99% - no longer have discretionary money to spend.

depends on what they manufacture. The low man on the totem pole at a yacht company is not going to buy the product he makes.
 

Paschendale

Uncanny
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
12,510
Reaction score
12,604
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
It's really not about CEOs. The CEO pay is just an indicator. The real issue is that the cost of living, coupled with inflation, is about four times what it was 40 years ago, and wages have stayed almost the same. And while wages have stayed the same, profits for the richest Americans have skyrocketed. All that additional money can hardly be said to be necessary to the survival or even comfort of the people who have it, and millions in this country are struggling for every dollar they get. A more equal distribution wouldn't make the nation poorer, and making us even more unequal certainly hasn't made us richer. This recession ought to be proof enough of that.
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,702
Reaction score
20,419
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
In a private company, the CEO's salary is none of your business.

In a publically traded company, the CEO's salary is the business of the shareholders who set and review those salaries on a regular, yearly basis. If the shareholders want to reward or pay what you see as outrageously high salaries, they generally do so because the return on their investment is increased because they have the best talent running the show. If you don't like it, as a shareholder, you sell your stock.

In a public company, the CEO's salary is the responsibility of the political master who oversees that public company.

It's the beauty of a capitalist economy in a democratic republic. Cuba may be more to your liking.
 

Zalatix

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Messages
3,228
Reaction score
662
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
In a private company, the CEO's salary is none of your business.

In a publically traded company, the CEO's salary is the business of the shareholders who set and review those salaries on a regular, yearly basis. If the shareholders want to reward or pay what you see as outrageously high salaries, they generally do so because the return on their investment is increased because they have the best talent running the show. If you don't like it, as a shareholder, you sell your stock.

In a public company, the CEO's salary is the responsibility of the political master who oversees that public company.

It's the beauty of a capitalist economy in a democratic republic. Cuba may be more to your liking.
The real beauty of democracy in a democratic republic is the voters can tell capitalism to go **** off and use the law to cap CEO salaries. And we wouldn't even have to travel to Cuba to see that. The best part about it is if the CEOs want to leave America after the voters have had their say, we can replace said CEOs. Zucker wants to take his Facebook and go elsewhere? Fine. OpenSourceBook will probably take his place. We don't need the rent-seekers.
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,702
Reaction score
20,419
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The real beauty of democracy in a democratic republic is the voters can tell capitalism to go **** off and use the law to cap CEO salaries. And we wouldn't even have to travel to Cuba to see that. The best part about it is if the CEOs want to leave America after the voters have had their say, we can replace said CEOs. Zucker wants to take his Facebook and go elsewhere? Fine. OpenSourceBook will probably take his place. We don't need the rent-seekers.

If you want your tech and financial industries to be gutted the same way your manufacturing industries have been, you're on the right track.
 

GottaGo

Rock and a hard place
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2012
Messages
5,635
Reaction score
4,910
Location
Miles to go before I sleep
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
The real beauty of democracy in a democratic republic is the voters can tell capitalism to go **** off and use the law to cap CEO salaries. And we wouldn't even have to travel to Cuba to see that. The best part about it is if the CEOs want to leave America after the voters have had their say, we can replace said CEOs. Zucker wants to take his Facebook and go elsewhere? Fine. OpenSourceBook will probably take his place. We don't need the rent-seekers.

And the next step would be to judge what 'your' work is worth, and what you should be paid.

Kind of nasty, that.
 

fmw

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2013
Messages
12,361
Reaction score
3,358
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
What a company pays its employees is nobody's business but theirs - not yours, not mine, not the government's. You have every right to form your own corporation and set salaries in a manner you choose.
 

AliHajiSheik

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
10,720
Reaction score
3,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What a company pays its employees is nobody's business but theirs - not yours, not mine, not the government's. You have every right to form your own corporation and set salaries in a manner you choose.

Like the OP will ever sign the front of a paycheck?
 

Zalatix

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Messages
3,228
Reaction score
662
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
If you want your tech and financial industries to be gutted the same way your manufacturing industries have been, you're on the right track.
Gut them? You mean the way they gutted the middle class? I don't have to do anything to gut them. The absurdly low wages they're paying workers, will do that for me.

What you keep missing is that when you keep cutting the wages of workers, you run out of customers, because no one can afford your crap. To use Reagan against you: there's so much you know about economics that just ain't true. You cannot maintain a civilization by cutting workers' pay. Eventually they stop buying stuff. I'm betting you won't respond to that.
 

Zalatix

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Messages
3,228
Reaction score
662
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
And the next step would be to judge what 'your' work is worth, and what you should be paid.

Kind of nasty, that.
Corporations already do that when they do mass layoffs and cut workers' salaries while raising their CEO pay.

Next time, please threaten American workers with something that doesn't happen already.

What a company pays its employees is nobody's business but theirs - not yours, not mine, not the government's. You have every right to form your own corporation and set salaries in a manner you choose.
Voters have the power to make it their business. And with laws such as the minimum wage, they already have been doing so.

Too bad, so sad, that's life.

Don't like it? Tough.

Oh, and yeah, I've signed both sides of paychecks - as an employer and as a worker.
 

Velvet Elvis

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
4,954
Reaction score
2,195
Location
Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
And the next step would be to judge what 'your' work is worth, and what you should be paid.
Isn't it ironic that the people who have no marketable skills to ascertain a high-paying job are the ones most jealous of those who do have those marketable skills? As I said in another thread, it's like two siblings. When one has a birthday and receives a gift, the other sibling whines like an infant because he didn't get his gift, regardless of the fact that it's not his birthday.

The real beauty of democracy in a democratic republic is the voters can tell capitalism to go **** off and use the law to cap CEO salaries.
Actually, in a democratic republic, the state has no right to dictate how private companies are run. Those are fascist cravings you're having.
 

Zalatix

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Messages
3,228
Reaction score
662
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Actually, in a democratic republic, the state has no right to dictate how private companies are run. Those are fascist cravings you're having.
Really? So that's why, in America, companies are told on a daily basis that they cannot discriminate on the basis of gender, and they must submit to safety inspections and other things. The state has, and routinely exercises, the voter-authorized right to dictate how private companies are run on a daily basis.

You can cry fascism all day long, nobody cares. FASCISM FASCISM FASCISM FASCISM!!! It's everyday life. Get over it.

Got any other wrong arguments you want to make?
 

fmw

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2013
Messages
12,361
Reaction score
3,358
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Too bad, so sad, that's life.

Don't like it? Tough.

Now there is a strong argument. ;) I guess you're happy having the government control everything. Too bad. So sad.
 

GottaGo

Rock and a hard place
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2012
Messages
5,635
Reaction score
4,910
Location
Miles to go before I sleep
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Corporations already do that when they do mass layoffs and cut workers' salaries while raising their CEO pay.

Next time, please threaten American workers with something that doesn't happen already.

And there is always the option of finding another job, no?

I've yet to know of, first hand or otherwise, where the actual rate of pay has been cut. Hours, yes, rate, no.

I'm not threatening Americans, it's those that condone governmental regulation or involvement in private enterprise that are.... :wink:
 

mtguy8787

Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
111
Reaction score
35
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Corporations already do that when they do mass layoffs and cut workers' salaries while raising their CEO pay.

Next time, please threaten American workers with something that doesn't happen already.


Voters have the power to make it their business. And with laws such as the minimum wage, they already have been doing so.

Too bad, so sad, that's life.

Don't like it? Tough.

Oh, and yeah, I've signed both sides of paychecks - as an employer and as a worker.


Voters also have the power to make what people eat, what kind of cars they drive, what sort of houses they live in, or who they marry their business. That doesnt make it right.

Some people believe in liberty. Some people believe in controlling other people's lives to fit with how they think they should live them. The only difference between that and dictatorship is the number of people who are trying to control others.

Economics is not a zero-sum game. CEOs earning more does not reduce opportunity for you.

If you believe that "the rich" having more money than most reduces your opportunity, the burden of proof is on you to show this.
 

Velvet Elvis

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
4,954
Reaction score
2,195
Location
Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Now there is a strong argument. ;) I guess you're happy having the government control everything. Too bad. So sad.

Democrats are. In fact, there are even some people who are so patently ready to surrender so much of their miserable little lives that they'd rather have Mommy Government give them all their basic necessities than have to actually work for them for themselves. It's a wonder they can tie their shoes without government to do it for them.
 

Zalatix

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Messages
3,228
Reaction score
662
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Now there is a strong argument. ;) I guess you're happy having the government control everything. Too bad. So sad.
The government doesn't control everything. The voters, when united, control everything.

And there is always the option of finding another job, no?
When there are 3 times as many job seekers than there are jobs, that is not an option.

Voters also have the power to make what people eat, what kind of cars they drive, what sort of houses they live in, or who they marry their business. That doesnt make it right.
Doesn't make it right, but it is democracy. You have a problem with democracy? Would you rather live under a dictatorship? Well, out with it.

Some people believe in liberty. Some people believe in controlling other people's lives to fit with how they think they should live them. The only difference between that and dictatorship is the number of people who are trying to control others.

Economics is not a zero-sum game. CEOs earning more does not reduce opportunity for you.
I'd say that, given the unemployment rate and the explosion of poverty in this country, it is in fact a zero-sum game. Our roads are crumbling, cost of living is rising faster than wages, wages are stagnating and have been stagnating for decades... there's several signs of a zero-sum game.

You'd be hard pressed to show where it is not.

Burden of proof met.

Moreover, I'll add this. We could jettison every last one of those billionaires into space and let them explosively decompress in hard vacuum and society would be none the worse for it. If the threat loomed that we'd eject the next batch of billionaires, everyone would just get used to making millions. The next JK Rowling would still write her Harry Potter, the next Michael Jordan will still shoot great hoops. The next Bill Gates might throw a hissyfit and go John Galt, only to find himself replaced by the next Linus Torvalds, who did it all for free. In general: the world might pitch a 10 minute hissyfit at the inhumanity of spacing a bunch of billionaires, while Rush Limbaugh would cry like a little baby on talk radio, Wall Street might throw a temper tantrum, and the GOP might suffer a group heart attack... but society, especially with its short attention span, would go on.

The ultra-rich are just rent-seekers. They're not any special group of people. They're just good at tricking people into over-valuing their skills.

Here's the ultimate reality for you, one that no one in this thread has yet the courage to address: they're also a bubble, which will pop as worker income dwindles into oblivion and no one has any money to purchase their stuff. You guys know this is coming and that's why you never, ever want to talk about what happens when the consumer/working class can no longer afford to consume anything but the bare necessities.
 

GottaGo

Rock and a hard place
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2012
Messages
5,635
Reaction score
4,910
Location
Miles to go before I sleep
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
When there are 3 times as many job seekers than there are jobs, that is not an option.
It is an option for many who take the time to make themselves worth something in the job market.

I'm afraid all I see is an attempt to paint one group evil, the others as victims, in order to take what they haven't earned.
 

Zalatix

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Messages
3,228
Reaction score
662
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
It is an option for many who take the time to make themselves worth something in the job market.
A thousand people have made that same argument on here, and a thousand have fallen silent after having been told the following, so here we go again:

1) How will they do "make themselves worth something"? With monopoly money? By plucking money off of trees? 70% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck because living expenses are so high. The average American who gets laid off in this economy, will not have the money to retrain.
2) There are 3 job seekers for every 1 job. So even if everyone plucked money off of trees and made themselves worth something in the job market, 2 out of 3 will still be without a job. And out a lot of additional money, at that. This is an irrefutable mathematical certainty.

I'm afraid all I see is an attempt to paint one group evil, the others as victims, in order to take what they haven't earned.
Workers have earned 100% of the wealth in this country. There would be no wealth without workers. In all the history of the world, no business has ever even existed without workers. Even if you could dream up a business that runs without workers, it won't survive without workers to sell stuff to. There is almost no Venn diagram disconnect between workers and customers. For 99% of businesses out there, there is no disconnect at all between the two groups.
 

GottaGo

Rock and a hard place
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2012
Messages
5,635
Reaction score
4,910
Location
Miles to go before I sleep
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
A thousand people have made that same argument on here, and a thousand have fallen silent after having been told the following, so here we go again:

1) How will they do "make themselves worth something"? With monopoly money? By plucking money off of trees? 70% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck because living expenses are so high. The average American who gets laid off in this economy, will not have the money to retrain.
2) There are 3 job seekers for every 1 job. So even if everyone plucked money off of trees and made themselves worth something in the job market, 2 out of 3 will still be without a job. And out a lot of additional money, at that. This is an irrefutable mathematical certainty.

Workers have earned 100% of the wealth in this country. There would be no wealth without workers. In all the history of the world, no business has ever even existed without workers. Even if you could dream up a business that runs without workers, it won't survive without workers to sell stuff to. There is almost no Venn diagram disconnect between workers and customers. For 99% of businesses out there, there is no disconnect at all between the two groups.

Making yourself worth something in the job market has absolutely nothing to do with plucking money off trees.

Doing your job, and doing it well. Initiative, creativity, a willingness to go above and beyond. Take courses or read up on subjects at the library that will not only help the company, but increase your saleable knowledge. Loyalty to the company rather than to just the paycheck, being positive and saying I will rather than Let Me Check.... when someone asks a question, say let me find out rather than I don't know, ask so-n-so. All these things increase a person's value in the employment market place.

Those that do the bare minimums and no more, are the ones who screech about protections and why should they have to work more than 40 hours. Those that watch the clock, burn company time and feel any and every benefit is theirs by right, rather than earned.

Attitude is a good percentage of making yourself worth something in the employment market place. You might consider that next time you go looking for a job. :wink:
 

Zalatix

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Messages
3,228
Reaction score
662
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Making yourself worth something in the job market has absolutely nothing to do with plucking money off trees.
It has absolutely everything to do with plucking money off of trees. It involves retraining and further education. That costs money.

Doing your job, and doing it well. Initiative, creativity, a willingness to go above and beyond. Take courses or read up on subjects at the library that will not only help the company, but increase your saleable knowledge. Loyalty to the company rather than to just the paycheck, being positive and saying I will rather than Let Me Check.... when someone asks a question, say let me find out rather than I don't know, ask so-n-so. All these things increase a person's value in the employment market place.
News flash, people have been doing most of this already. In reward for showing more loyalty to the company, the company responds by doing mass layoffs. This, after being paid wages which make going to college to get re-education and re-training impossibly expensive.

Circuit City, for instance, laid off its top salespeople in favor of cheaper, hourly paid workers. Highly skilled nurses in hospitals got laid off en masse in favor of cheap nurse aids and whatnot.

Moreover, employers are now doing more work with FEWER people. The more work you do, the more value you bring to the company, the less of you they need. So, quite literally, increased worker productivity is a historically proven massive job killer. No, really, your theories suck. Reality trumps you. Higher productivity consistently accompanies reductions in workforce.

Those that do the bare minimums and no more, are the ones who screech about protections and why should they have to work more than 40 hours. Those that watch the clock, burn company time and feel any and every benefit is theirs by right, rather than earned.
So you're the kind of guy who works an extra 40 hours for free. You clap as they reduce your wages and you even come in on Saturday - for free, mind you - and spend all your free time learning how to better serve your boss. That's you, eh? No doubt you've been laid off many times despite doing all of this.

You just keep living that subservient life, the life of the worker that gets abused and shouts "thank you sir, may I have another!" You will retire a man of broken body, mind and spirit. :wink:
 

GottaGo

Rock and a hard place
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2012
Messages
5,635
Reaction score
4,910
Location
Miles to go before I sleep
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
It has absolutely everything to do with plucking money off of trees. It involves retraining and further education. That costs money.
only if you change industries entirely. One can go from a entry level position, research and learn from those above them, research and study at a library, learn how to actually manage a business (at least the stuff books can teach you, hands on is a better educator) do accounting, budgeting and forecasting, all from books one can borrow for free. Imagine that.


News flash, people have been doing most of this already. In reward for showing more loyalty to the company, the company responds by doing mass layoffs. This, after being paid wages which make going to college to get re-education and re-training impossibly expensive.

Circuit City, for instance, laid off its top salespeople in favor of cheaper, hourly paid workers. Highly skilled nurses in hospitals got laid off en masse in favor of cheap nurse aids and whatnot.

Moreover, employers are now doing more work with FEWER people. The more work you do, the more value you bring to the company, the less of you they need. So, quite literally, increased worker productivity is a historically proven massive job killer. No, really, your theories suck. Reality trumps you. Higher productivity consistently accompanies reductions in workforce.
And sales people aren't exactly rare, are they? You obviously haven't gotten over the hurdle of knowing that the only person that can make your worth in the employment marketplace is YOU. Not what someone else tells you your worth, what you know your worth, and can prove it. Reality trumps your sad little attempt at demeaning me.

Those that are still employed are there because they have something the employer values. Not because the drag them selves into work each day, griping about everything and just waiting for the time to tick by.


So you're the kind of guy who works an extra 40 hours for free. You clap as they reduce your wages and you even come in on Saturday - for free, mind you - and spend all your free time learning how to better serve your boss. That's you, eh? No doubt you've been laid off many times despite doing all of this.

You just keep living that subservient life, the life of the worker that gets abused and shouts "thank you sir, may I have another!" You will retire a man of broken body, mind and spirit. :wink:

I've worked for the same company for 13 years, recently got a very healthy raise, and have been told by the owners that "I couldn't have done it without you' word for word. Though that is hearsay to you, I know what it's worth to me to see a company grow from gross annual earnings of $500k, to $5M +. The hours I work are well compensated, both monetarily and benefit wise. Because I treat the company as though it were my own. What I didn't know, I sought from books and the internet, and grew with it.

Subservient? If you only knew, lol. But unfortunately, with a mindset such as yours, you won't ever know, you're too busy blaming the evil rich for something they won't just give you.
 
Top Bottom