Save the CEOs!
8/8/18 14:09![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
luzribeiro posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsOn-topic a little bit, if you don't mind...
Found this on the Nets the other day. Don't know how to react exactly.
An addendum comment also says,
"There are socialists running around complaining that CEOs make a thousand times as much as part-time minimum wage teenagers at their companies. The politics of petty jealousy would cost each worker their own job. The larger any business is, the more valuable the work of the executive who runs it. The larger the number of people who depend on him, the proportionately more it's worth paying to get the very best. Any worker who wants the management of his company to be paid less doesn't even value his own job, which depends on that leadership for its security. If the company goes under, what's he going to do, then?"
A few thoughts sprang to mind. First, isn't this actually proof the workers need to be paid more since they are taking a risk while not controlling their own destiny? (This is one reason it's good to be a consultant. Multiple employers equals better income security.
This obviously doesn't work for everyone).
Also, reducing a workforce is seen as a CEO doing their job well, so this math kind of falls apart when you forget that doing his job well or badly often has the same impact. How are those workers at Harley Davidson and Carrier doing, hmmm?
Besides... If a CEO screws up..he has a golden parachute.
Oh, and...
Found this on the Nets the other day. Don't know how to react exactly.
An addendum comment also says,
"There are socialists running around complaining that CEOs make a thousand times as much as part-time minimum wage teenagers at their companies. The politics of petty jealousy would cost each worker their own job. The larger any business is, the more valuable the work of the executive who runs it. The larger the number of people who depend on him, the proportionately more it's worth paying to get the very best. Any worker who wants the management of his company to be paid less doesn't even value his own job, which depends on that leadership for its security. If the company goes under, what's he going to do, then?"
A few thoughts sprang to mind. First, isn't this actually proof the workers need to be paid more since they are taking a risk while not controlling their own destiny? (This is one reason it's good to be a consultant. Multiple employers equals better income security.
This obviously doesn't work for everyone).
Also, reducing a workforce is seen as a CEO doing their job well, so this math kind of falls apart when you forget that doing his job well or badly often has the same impact. How are those workers at Harley Davidson and Carrier doing, hmmm?
Besides... If a CEO screws up..he has a golden parachute.
Oh, and...
(no subject)
Date: 8/8/18 11:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/8/18 09:15 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/8/18 18:54 (UTC)Hmm still compelling but somehow way less compelling.
(no subject)
Date: 9/8/18 07:14 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/8/18 07:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/8/18 10:51 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/8/18 21:38 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/8/18 20:49 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/8/18 21:36 (UTC)1. A gray market for non-cash-based perks to circumvent the cap
2. The government takes the difference and uses it for some random purpose that the government declares most efficient
So how about some details? Otherwise we may as well just be waving pitchforks and torches.
(no subject)
Date: 10/8/18 05:40 (UTC)More options.
Now, do tell more about those pitchforks.
Or are you saying that the income gap is not a problem? Please explain why.
(no subject)
Date: 10/8/18 06:44 (UTC)Nothing about capping or even adjusting CEO pay.
Now, do tell more about those pitchforks.
(no subject)
Date: 10/8/18 06:51 (UTC)You were the one who brought up the pitchforks. Either provide your own solution, or explain how looking for solutions is like killing people, or conversely, you can just say you believe this isn't a problem at all and bail out.
(no subject)
Date: 10/8/18 07:34 (UTC)In terms of reducing income disparity, I actually like your list, because to me the problem is predatory lending, from the smallest payday loan all the way up to the federal debt.
But I’ll say it again: None of those solutions say anything about capping CEO pay, or even that high CEO pay is unjust.
The closest is the tax rate, which I am happy to see adjusted upwards.
(no subject)
Date: 10/8/18 07:54 (UTC)But yeah, you do have some sensible proposals. Shall we lay down the pitchforks now?
(no subject)
Date: 10/8/18 07:56 (UTC)Nowadays I just share opinions, whenever I have them - dedicating an amount of time and effort into it that roughly corresponds to the extent to which said topic interests me.
(no subject)
Date: 10/8/18 08:12 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/8/18 05:42 (UTC)Of course, the problem won't be addressed before a sufficient number of people have recognized it as such. Apparently, you're not one of those.
(no subject)
Date: 10/8/18 06:35 (UTC)Obviously there is a problem. I see it more broadly as a problem of wealth/ownership disparity, rather than income. (After all, if you own the factory, you call the shots and live large whether or not you are paid a million dollars a year or $0.)
I see social tensions on the rise as a result of the erosion of the ladder leading to the realm of the middle class. I think the better solutions all focus on restoring the rungs in that ladder, rather than forcing the people on the top floor penthouse to throw money out the window in hopes that it will land in the street (rather than being intercepted and misdirected in the plumbing of the government along the way).
(no subject)
Date: 10/8/18 06:54 (UTC)You're not being specific here, either. "Restoring the rungs in the ladder" - what does that mean exactly? So far it only sounds like a beautiful slogan someone like Bernie Sanders would utter from the political pulpit. Care to be more specific about that, or you can't be bothered?
(no subject)
Date: 10/8/18 07:01 (UTC)I love how this sounds. Now, the harder part. How to do that?
(no subject)
Date: 10/8/18 07:37 (UTC)Banks will have to take a harder look at who they offer credit to.
(no subject)
Date: 10/8/18 07:51 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/8/18 08:13 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/8/18 08:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/8/18 07:00 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/8/18 08:15 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/8/18 10:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/8/18 06:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/8/18 07:28 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/8/18 07:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/8/18 02:10 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/8/18 03:14 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/8/18 03:37 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/8/18 04:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/8/18 07:47 (UTC)E.g. if my house could make a landlord $5000 a month (since it's in the Bay Area), but I am not allowed to receive more than $200k in cash for it without forfeiting the difference, I'd expect all kinds of under-the-table offers to come my way, to the tune of at least $400k in additional value.
Tax fraud you say? Pish posh old bean, this is just the way we do things in our hippie trade-based economy. ;)