• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!

Cutting Spending Leads to Growth

phattonez said:
The company unloads him quickly just as they would any other employee that cost the company money. Nobody ever asks the burger flipper to pay the company money for the business he lost by burning everything he touched.
Click to expand...

Yea, no one rewards the burger flipper with millions of dollars either, even if he is a great burger flipper.
 
imagep said:
Yea, no one rewards the burger flipper with millions of dollars either, even if he is a great burger flipper.
Click to expand...

The value of that burger flipper is easy to quantify because we can easily measure his production. It's not so easy to place a value a CEO because the work that the CEO happens to do is not easily measurable.

Here's the one thing, it is not a matter that the CEO may have made the company extra money, it is the issue of if the company could hire a different person to be the CEO at a much lower price, who can also make the company extra money. I would expect any CEO to make as much money for the company as possible, regardless of how much he gets paid. If he's not willing to do his best then: "adios amigos".
 
imagep said:
Yea, no one rewards the burger flipper with millions of dollars either, even if he is a great burger flipper.
Click to expand...

Because he doesn't bring that much money to the company. Pay is always tending toward marginal productivity.
 
imagep said:
The value of that burger flipper is easy to quantify because we can easily measure his production. It's not so easy to place a value a CEO because the work that the CEO happens to do is not easily measurable.

Here's the one thing, it is not a matter that the CEO may have made the company extra money, it is the issue of if the company could hire a different person to be the CEO at a much lower price, who can also make the company extra money. I would expect any CEO to make as much money for the company as possible, regardless of how much he gets paid. If he's not willing to do his best then: "adios amigos".
Click to expand...

Then why would a company hire that CEO if another one could do the job just as well but would demand a much lower salary? Wouldn't it make more business sense to hire the cheaper one? Why would a company not want the best return for their investment as possible?
 
phattonez said:
Then why would a company hire that CEO if another one could do the job just as well but would demand a much lower salary? Wouldn't it make more business sense to hire the cheaper one? Why would a company not want the best return for their investment as possible?
Click to expand...

Because the company does not have full information to make the correct hiring.
 
PeteEU said:
Because the company does not have full information to make the correct hiring.
Click to expand...

yet libs tend to believe that the government does which is why things are so screwed up
 
TurtleDude said:
yet libs tend to believe that the government does which is why things are so screwed up
Click to expand...

No, that is what Conservatives believe of Libs..

The fact of the matter, Government should be there to "even out the playing field" between the "strong" and the "weak" in a financial relationship. This is done by regulation and law. Unfortunately, this has more than often been twisted in the US to be protecting the strong from the weak via monopolies, putting walls around the market and so on and son.
 
phattonez said:
Then why would a company hire that CEO if another one could do the job just as well but would demand a much lower salary? Wouldn't it make more business sense to hire the cheaper one? Why would a company not want the best return for their investment as possible?
Click to expand...

Mostly cronieism.

They hire their friends and realitives. Do you actually think that Chase Bank has ever put a listing on Monster.com for a top executive position? Do you think that the GE board of directors of major companies sift through stacks of resumes looking for a new VP?

Heck, even when Obama fired the prez of GM they didn't advertise the job opening, it just magically got filled (by someone's buddy).

Top executive positions are not open to the general public.
 
PeteEU said:
No, that is what Conservatives believe of Libs..

The fact of the matter, Government should be there to "even out the playing field" between the "strong" and the "weak" in a financial relationship. This is done by regulation and law. Unfortunately, this has more than often been twisted in the US to be protecting the strong from the weak via monopolies, putting walls around the market and so on and son.
Click to expand...

why? if you believe in the "social contract" why would the industrious agree to such a relationship.
 
imagep said:
Mostly cronieism.

They hire their friends and realitives. Do you actually think that Chase Bank has ever put a listing on Monster.com for a top executive position? Do you think that the GE board of directors of major companies sift through stacks of resumes looking for a new VP?

Heck, even when Obama fired the prez of GM they didn't advertise the job opening, it just magically got filled (by someone's buddy).

Top executive positions are not open to the general public.
Click to expand...

if you think that is bad you might want to examine how people get leading roles in Hollyweird. Merit plays little part in that
 
TurtleDude said:
why? if you believe in the "social contract" why would the industrious agree to such a relationship.
Click to expand...

You mean "industrious" like hard working middle class folk and small business owners? Or do you mean "industrious" as in people who have inherited larges sums of money that they did not earn?

How about those GM executives? Chrystler executives? Charter Communications execs? Were the top execs of Ameriquest industrious? Countrywide? AIG? Lehman Brothers? Wachovia? Merril Lynch? HBOS? Trump Entertainment Resorts? Steve and Barrys? Nortel? KB Toys? Goody's? Extended Stay Hotels? Washington Mutual? Woolworths? Ziff0Davis? Tweeter? Circuit City? The top execs of all these failed companies were paid millions of dollars and while they left their companies in shambles they left with millions in their bank accounts.

What about Paris Hilton, is she industrious? Was Bernie Maddoff industrious? Enron executives, were they industrious? Tyco executives?

Don't confuse "rich" with being industrious. Great wealth frequently comes from luck, deciet, chronieism, nepotism, and despite total incompentance. This is the only significant failure of capitalism - but then again maybe it is not a failure of capitalism itself, maybe it's the just a manifistation of normal human traits (greed/love/hate/etc).

It also seems to me that the falure of "mega" companies was much more rare when CEO salary ratios were 30:0 instead of 600:1

Yes, I believe that many of our TRUELY industrious people would gladly agree to such a relationship although I can see why the rich may not agree.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
if you think that is bad you might want to examine how people get leading roles in Hollyweird. Merit plays little part in that
Click to expand...

Sure, I agree. For every leading man or lady who get's paid millions, there are thousands if not tens of thousands of peopel who are just and skilled, hard working, good looking and tallented. Many of these people would take that movie gig for just a few percent of the pay of the stars. I often wonder if movie producers are willing to pay such money to the stars because the producers know deep down in their heart that they are incapable of producing a quality movie - so they compensate by purchasing a famous face instead.

Same situation in music, although possibly not the same situation in athletics. I still find the salaries of many athletes to be ridiculous but I do understand that great athletes are indeed rare comomidities.
 
imagep said:
Sure, I agree. For every leading man or lady who get's paid millions, there are thousands if not tens of thousands of peopel who are just and skilled, hard working, good looking and tallented. Many of these people would take that movie gig for just a few percent of the pay of the stars. I often wonder if movie producers are willing to pay such money to the stars because the producers know deep down in their heart that they are incapable of producing a quality movie - so they compensate by purchasing a famous face instead.

Same situation in music, although possibly not the same situation in athletics. I still find the salaries of many athletes to be ridiculous but I do understand that great athletes are indeed rare comomidities.
Click to expand...


I would place the blame for that on the public

A famous actor or actress will generally bring in more moviegoers to a film then a movie with no known stars. There are exceptions of course when the film is very good though
 
imagep said:
You mean "industrious" like hard working middle class folk and small business owners? Or do you mean "industrious" as in people who have inherited larges sums of money that they did not earn?

How about those GM executives? Chrystler executives? Charter Communications execs? Were the top execs of Ameriquest industrious? Countrywide? AIG? Lehman Brothers? Wachovia? Merril Lynch? HBOS? Trump Entertainment Resorts? Steve and Barrys? Nortel? KB Toys? Goody's? Extended Stay Hotels? Washington Mutual? Woolworths? Ziff0Davis? Tweeter? Circuit City? The top execs of all these failed companies were paid millions of dollars and while they left their companies in shambles they left with millions in their bank accounts.

What about Paris Hilton, is she industrious? Was Bernie Maddoff industrious? Enron executives, were they industrious? Tyco executives?

Don't confuse "rich" with being industrious. Great wealth frequently comes from luck, deciet, chronieism, nepotism, and despite total incompentance. This is the only significant failure of capitalism - but then again maybe it is not a failure of capitalism itself, maybe it's the just a manifistation of normal human traits (greed/love/hate/etc).

It also seems to me that the falure of "mega" companies was much more rare when CEO salary ratios were 30:0 instead of 600:1

Yes, I believe that many of our TRUELY industrious people would gladly agree to such a relationship although I can see why the rich may not agree.
Click to expand...

still hung up on someone who inherits money? Do you understand that the majority of millionaires in this country are first generation?

Dont' confuse being poor with being oppressed

BTW WTF is Gross wealth

your comment about deceit again betrays that spite and envy is a major motivator of your position.

I have never supported the ego driven salaries of some executives. I have stock in hundreds of companies and I would rather get more dividends because it is hard to imagine someone being worth 100 Million a year unless they say own the company and that is what it is worth or they are an athlete who wins that in prize money or endorsements

the bottom line is that the poor have a great deal in this nation. In many other areas they would be far worse off

it sucks to be untalented, unproductive and uneducated. But that isn't a justification to take from those who are
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom