Pope attacks mega-salaries and wealth gap in peace message

  • Thread starter Thread starter ringil
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is an incredibly arrogant statement.

Note: I am not calling **you **arrogant. I am calling your statement arrogant.

It is also a violation of Catholic Social Teaching:
*Rerum Novarum: *45. Let the working man and the employer make free agreements, and in particular let them agree freely as to the wages; nevertheless, there underlies a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient than any bargain between man and man, namely, that wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well behaved wage-earner.

Here is the problem I have with this. People have no problem criticizing government workers and claiming that they get paid too much. Nobody calls out someone as making an arrogant statement when they say government workers are overpaid. Even as a government worker myself, I argue that government worker salaries are fair game for discussion and criticism. And there is a similarity between some CEO salaries and government worker salaries, in the sense that the people negotiating the salaries are not negotiating with their own money. If the Board of Directors owned 100% of the company, then whatever they pay the CEO is fine. But with a public corporation they are paying the CEO with shareholders money, and it is an open question as to whether they are good stewards of the shareholders money.​
 
Here is the problem I have with this. People have no problem criticizing government workers and claiming that they get paid too much. Nobody calls out someone as making an arrogant statement when they say government workers are overpaid. Even as a government worker myself, I argue that government worker salaries are fair game for discussion and criticism. And there is a similarity between some CEO salaries and government worker salaries, in the sense that the people negotiating the salaries are not negotiating with their own money. If the Board of Directors owned 100% of the company, then whatever they pay the CEO is fine. But with a public corporation they are paying the CEO with shareholders money, and it is an open question as to whether they are good stewards of the shareholders money.
But who are YOU to ask or make judgements about a CEO’s salary. If you disapprove, don’t buy the stock, don’t shop at Wally World or Goodwill. There is zero similarity between determining a CEO’s salary and that of government workers with their specific ratings and categories…are you a G whatever, then you’ll make $X. In contrast while certainly some CEOs are overpaid, it’s not up to us if we have no connection with the corporation. If you own stock then go to the shareholders’ meeting and make a pest of yourself. It may or may not work but at least you’d have standing.

For we taxpayers, we have standing in that we are paying your salary and benefits but we have no power. I don’t think most taxpayers are outraged by government salaries so much as the complete lack of accountability. We have seen particularly in this administration corruption to the core, dishonesty, and profligate waste (bathtub boy anyone?) but rarely are those in high places, those actually acting so disgracefully being fired. Yet you frequently hear of even high level CEOs being canned for having a mistress (didn’t hurt Clinton did it?) or lavish personal spending with the company dollars oe more important, not getting good results for the shareholders. Heck Apple canned Steve Jobs a few decades ago.

Also as Super Luigi mentioned, our moribund economy brought to us by the same folks who wasted billions on Solyndra, LightSquared etc, not to mention billions on their non functioning website, is the reason for the continued and tragic unemployment levels. Go to North Dakota where the oil patch is generating jobs a plenty and you’ll see the Mickey D burger flipper making a far better wage than in other places. GROWTH will help people particularly in the lower tiers of training and skill level than some top down regulation of salary.

Lisa
 
Studies usually have a way of proving what is already known by common sense. Divorce and the break down of the family in our societies have wreaked financial havoc on those subjected to this.
Yeah, you would think wouldn’t you? Common sense would indeed rule the day with something that would appear to be so obvious. But for some reason, when you get into these discussions on here…

Peace, Mark
 
But who are YOU to ask or make judgements about a CEO’s salary.
I am the owner, that gives me the all the right in the world.
If you disapprove, don’t buy the stock, don’t shop at Wally World or Goodwill.
And if you think your local state worker is overpaid, then move to a different state?
There is zero similarity between determining a CEO’s salary and that of government workers with their specific ratings and categories…are you a G whatever, then you’ll make $X.
In both cases, the negotiations are being done by people who are spending someone else’s money.
In contrast while certainly some CEOs are overpaid, it’s not up to us if we have no connection with the corporation. If you own stock then go to the shareholders’ meeting and make a pest of yourself. It may or may not work but at least you’d have standing.
As a shareholder, we certainly have the legal and moral standing to be concerned about how much our employees are making.
For we taxpayers, we have standing in that we are paying your salary and benefits but we have no power. I don’t think most taxpayers are outraged by government salaries so much as the complete lack of accountability.
Even some government workers are outraged by the lack of accountability.
We have seen particularly in this administration corruption to the core, dishonesty, and profligate waste (bathtub boy anyone?) but rarely are those in high places, those actually acting so disgracefully being fired.
I have worked in both republican and democrat administrations and I see no difference in the amount of corruption between the two.
Yet you frequently hear of even high level CEOs being canned for having a mistress (didn’t hurt Clinton did it?) or lavish personal spending with the company dollars
Can you give some examples of these?
oe more important, not getting good results for the shareholders. Heck Apple canned Steve Jobs a few decades ago.
CEOs do get canned for poor performance, but they often like Bob Nardelli get paid handsomely for bad performance.
Also as Super Luigi mentioned, our moribund economy brought to us by the same folks who wasted billions on Solyndra, LightSquared etc, not to mention billions on their non functioning website, is the reason for the continued and tragic unemployment levels.
How much of our bad economy is due to these things and how much is due to the fact that over the past thirty years we leveraged ourselves to the brink and it will probably take a decade to recover from that leveraging? After all, Solyndra is a mere mosquito on the economy in the grand scheme of things.
Go to North Dakota where the oil patch is generating jobs a plenty and you’ll see the Mickey D burger flipper making a far better wage than in other places. GROWTH will help people particularly in the lower tiers of training and skill level than some top down regulation of salary.
The problem with North Dakota is that the rents there often exceed those in Manhattan. The boom there is a great thing, but a minor blip as far as the economy is concerned.
 
Here is the problem I have with this. People have no problem criticizing government workers and claiming that they get paid too much. Nobody calls out someone as making an arrogant statement when they say government workers are overpaid. Even as a government worker myself, I argue that government worker salaries are fair game for discussion and criticism.
As a “shareholder” (a/k/a “taxpayer”), I have that right. Just as a shareholder in a number of companies, I have a right to criticize how my employees are paid (including the CEO of those companies where I hold stock).

Having said that, I don’t have a problem with most government salaries…I have a far bigger problem with other issues involving civil service employment…but that is out of scope of this discussion.
And there is a similarity between some CEO salaries and government worker salaries, in the sense that the people negotiating the salaries are not negotiating with their own money. If the Board of Directors owned 100% of the company, then whatever they pay the CEO is fine. But with a public corporation they are paying the CEO with shareholders money, and it is an open question as to whether they are good stewards of the shareholders money.
In each corporation where I hold stock, I have the opportunity to either attend the annual meeting where the board of directors is elected (yes, elected) or to cast a vote by proxy. Therefore, the board of directors is acting in my name. If I have a problem with that, I could communicate with my fellow shareholders and vote to replace the board. (And, yes, that has happened on occasion – see Shell, BSkyB, and so on)

And by the way, if I have a problem with civil service salaries (or other civil service issues), I can vote to replace the board and have the salaries (or other issues) reworked. I do so regularly…perhaps if enough of my fellow shareholders agree with me, something might happen.
 
Like in sports, the advent of free agency has caused the renumerations of the star player CEOs to skyrocket. There was a time when there was loyalty between the corporation and the top executives, and the sports teams and those who played for them. When the players were able to put themselves on the market, their value to the team owners reflected what the competitive market could bear.
The same phenomena accounts for the salaries of todays CEO.

It has a lot to do with the information age as well.
 
Like in sports, the advent of free agency has caused the renumerations of the star player CEOs to skyrocket. There was a time when there was loyalty between the corporation and the top executives, and the sports teams and those who played for them. When the players were able to put themselves on the market, their value to the team owners reflected what the competitive market could bear.
The same phenomena accounts for the salaries of todays CEO.

It has a lot to do with the information age as well. The size of the market has increased exponentially due to the greater exposure of the produce through the technology of the information age.
The superstar hockey player once relied on the 14000 eyewitness fans for his wages. Television increased that market, cable even more, and the internet now makes his star attraction global.
These are the same kind of forces in play with the CEO superstars.
 
The pope is a media age superstar too, by the way. The Church is literally raking in the publicity now due to the Cardinals’ astute choice of CEO.

Like him or not, this is one pope that really knows how to perform. The world is rapt.
 
Pope Francis is brilliant in his ability to confuse the media who forget that The Pope Is Catholic…

Just when they think it’s safe to claim he is a man of the Left, wanting to redistribute the world’s wealth and opening the door to Womyn Priests, birth control and abortion, he reminds them of the Church’s eternal Truth.

That snapping sound is reporters’ heads spinning around as they try (without success) to stay one step ahead. The Pope challenges all to accept the wholeness of truth, not just the little snippets and sound bites.

Lisa
 
I am in the minority on this but I am concerned that Pope Francis will end up being a weak pope. Therefore, at this point in time, I do not consider him weak but not strong either; it’s too early for me to say. But if he ends up being a weak pope, it is all part of God’s plan; in the end know that “Good” triumphs over “Evil” and we will glorify God for correcting the actions of a weak pope. Pope Francis can end up being one of the greatest popes in church history, but in my opinion, he cannot be perceived as being silent on important issues. He must speak more forcefully on the evils of abortion, homosexuality, same-sex marriage, endorse the teachings of Pope Paul’s HUMANAE VITAE etc and he can also put an end to the Medjugorje scam. It seems like Pope Francis does not want to hurt people’s feelings for those Catholics who are labelled as “liberal”. But by doing so, he hurts Catholics who are labelled “conservative”. We have to be like Simon of Cyrene and help people carry their crosses even when the truth hurts. God is “Truth” just like God is “Love”. To be silent on the “Truth” is like being silent on “Love”. The greatest act of Pope Francis’s pontificate so far is to declare Pope John XXIII a saint. He has to do much more. Pope Francis asked us to pray for him when he was elected and he really does need our prayers more than any other pope in recent history.
 
A wage from the government IS taxpayers money (a quite a bit of it too) if the person is sitting in rehab or is carrying out his daily duties under the influence of illegal substances; but my point is not to single out that one person. It’s more the principle of the thing: why should only those on assistance get tested, why not everybody receiving taxpayer money?
Of course, military personnel, and I would assume any federal law enforcement personnel are subject to random drug tests at any time. I don’t know about other federal employees.

It might be expensive to test everyone receiving tax money on a routine basis.
 
. It seems like Pope Francis does not want to hurt people’s feelings for those Catholics who are labelled as “liberal”. But by doing so, he hurts Catholics who are labelled “conservative”.
It sounds like you’re just reading what the media reports, and not what he’s actually saying.
 
I am in the minority on this but I am concerned that Pope Francis will end up being a weak pope. Therefore, at this point in time, I do not consider him weak but not strong either; it’s too early for me to say. But if he ends up being a weak pope, it is all part of God’s plan; in the end know that “Good” triumphs over “Evil” and we will glorify God for correcting the actions of a weak pope. Pope Francis can end up being one of the greatest popes in church history, but in my opinion, he cannot be perceived as being silent on important issues. He must speak more forcefully on the evils of abortion, homosexuality, same-sex marriage, endorse the teachings of Pope Paul’s HUMANAE VITAE etc and he can also put an end to the Medjugorje scam. It seems like Pope Francis does not want to hurt people’s feelings for those Catholics who are labelled as “liberal”. But by doing so, he hurts Catholics who are labelled “conservative”. We have to be like Simon of Cyrene and help people carry their crosses even when the truth hurts. God is “Truth” just like God is “Love”. To be silent on the “Truth” is like being silent on “Love”. The greatest act of Pope Francis’s pontificate so far is to declare Pope John XXIII a saint. He has to do much more. Pope Francis asked us to pray for him when he was elected and he really does need our prayers more than any other pope in recent history.
Do you really think that trying to address the issues homosexuality and same sex marriage rise to the importance of trying to address the mutually related problems of greed and poverty?

After spending some time on this site, I rather suspect that the obsession with matters of sexual behavior is rather perverse, and perhaps motivated by a desire for some sort of titillation. Isn’t it time to put more energy into addressing some of the more important issues of our time?

Come to Bangladesh, and I will give you a personal tour of what I am talking about. At the end of my day, I really don’t care whether a florist in some rich country is indignant about having to put together a flower bouquet for a gay marriage. I’m more concerned with how we are going to repair the cleft palate on the kid with rickets and other co-morbidities, and how to address the sanitation issues in the refugee camp.

I say, BRING IT ON POPE FRANCIS! Talk about the things that matter, and stop dwelling on the less important things.
 
Of course, military personnel, and I would assume any federal law enforcement personnel are subject to random drug tests at any time. I don’t know about other federal employees.

It might be expensive to test everyone receiving tax money on a routine basis.
I don’t think anyone has suggested testing EVERYONE, or before each check is cut. Random screening with strong and decisive action when someone fails would be quite effective. When I was on the Board of a homeless families shelter, the cost of drug testing was very high so we had random screenings and that not only saved money but seemed to be a deterrent to those who wanted a warm place to sleep but didn’t want to give up the drugs/drinking. Plus it did allow us to divert those who tested positive. I think the threat of random testing is an even better deterrent to routine testing. You probably wouldn’t be surprised at the amazing ways druggies and drunks try to thwart the system.

I think anyone who gets taxpayer funded benefits at least owes we taxpayers evidence that it’s being used for something other than drugs and alcohol.

Lisa
 
I don’t think anyone has suggested testing EVERYONE, or before each check is cut. Random screening with strong and decisive action when someone fails would be quite effective. When I was on the Board of a homeless families shelter, the cost of drug testing was very high so we had random screenings and that not only saved money but seemed to be a deterrent to those who wanted a warm place to sleep but didn’t want to give up the drugs/drinking. Plus it did allow us to divert those who tested positive. I think the threat of random testing is an even better deterrent to routine testing. You probably wouldn’t be surprised at the amazing ways druggies and drunks try to thwart the system.

I think anyone who gets taxpayer funded benefits at least owes we taxpayers evidence that it’s being used for something other than drugs and alcohol.

Lisa
Or… we might decide that addiction is an illness, to be treated, and put our attention toward a healthcare system more in line with the rest of the developed world. The US pays nearly double per person what Germany and Switzerland pay, and yet provides a lower standard of care by every measure. We can actually cut our costs in about half, while increasing the quality of care, simply by looking at how they do it, and instituting those reforms, regardless of whether the lawyers, insurance companies, pharma companies, etc. think.
 
Or… we might decide that addiction is an illness, to be treated, and put our attention toward a healthcare system more in line with the rest of the developed world. The US pays nearly double per person what Germany and Switzerland pay, and yet provides a lower standard of care by every measure. We can actually cut our costs in about half, while increasing the quality of care, simply by looking at how they do it, and instituting those reforms, regardless of whether the lawyers, insurance companies, pharma companies, etc. think.
The drivers of increased costs in medical care are government mandates, red tape and interference, along with litigation. None of these issues are the problem in Germany and Switzerland. I disagree with your contention that America has a lower standard of care by every measure. Baloney.

Addiction in America IS treated like an illness. As I’ve said multiple times, one of the benefits of drug testing welfare recipients is to divert them into treatment rather than let them continue to drink and drug on our nickel…and then access medical care on our nickel.

And what this has to do with the thread is beyond me. Maybe get back on topic or start yet another thread on those who are not involved in the healthcare system making specious and unsupported claims about how bad it is…

Lisa
 
That’s fine, but since the Church hasn’t come to your conclusion, people can take or leave it.

But to say you think anyone who supports American style capitalism (which is heavily regulated to the point of being ineffective) will end up in Hell is nonsense, and hardly Catholic teaching. Tell us who else you think will end up in Hell…
Your opinions as well can be taken or left. I will stick with those whose perhaps can not be so easily dismissed.

“There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. …In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side… “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony.

“Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

Yes, I think people will go to Hell for greed, and it will be hard for the one who lives for wealth at the expense of the poor. Is it really such a stretch that the modern lords who earn salaries that are on the magnitude of thousands over those serfs under them who are working poor will have a harder time getting into Heaven than a camel getting through an eye of a needle, to use the words Jesus did?

When our wealth disparity reaches the level it has, we are broken. I am thankful to the Holy Father for addressing this issue. Again, as Jesus said, let him who has ears to hear, listen to what the Spirit says to the Church.
 
Like him or not, this is one pope that really knows how to perform. The world is rapt.
I He must speak more forcefully on the evils of abortion, homosexuality, same-sex marriage, endorse the teachings of Pope Paul’s HUMANAE VITAE etc and he can also put an end to the Medjugorje scam…
Pope Francis is not a performer. He is a Jesuit. He speaks on the evil that he sees needs to be addressed. He is a watchman for the Church. He must speak the message God gives him to speak. He must warn the sinner so that our sin will not be on him. It is never popular to speak out about the dangers of Mammon, yet we are told that the love of money is the root of all evil. So, he is starting with the root. A pretty good place to start.
 
The drivers of increased costs in medical care are government mandates, red tape and interference, along with litigation. None of these issues are the problem in Germany and Switzerland. I disagree with your contention that America has a lower standard of care by every measure. Baloney.

Addiction in America IS treated like an illness. As I’ve said multiple times, one of the benefits of drug testing welfare recipients is to divert them into treatment rather than let them continue to drink and drug on our nickel…and then access medical care on our nickel.

And what this has to do with the thread is beyond me. Maybe get back on topic or start yet another thread on those who are not involved in the healthcare system making specious and unsupported claims about how bad it is…

Lisa
Well, I guess you have your own private set of statistics to refer to. I was referring to the assessment of the likes of the National Academy of Science, which in its brief on the topic says the following:
The U.S. health disadvantage spans many types of illness and injury. When compared with the average of peer countries, Americans as a group fare worse in at least nine health areas:
  1. infant mortality and low birth weight
  2. injuries and homicides
  3. adolescent pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections
  4. HIV and AIDS
  5. drug-related deaths
  6. obesity and diabetes
  7. heart disease
  8. chronic lung disease
  9. disability
Many of these conditions have a particularly profound effect on young people, reducing the odds that Americans will live to age 50. And for those who reach age 50, these conditions contribute to poorer health and greater illness later in life.
This brief, and many others, go on to describe the problems with the US medical delivery system which contribute to the lower standard of delivery, and the higher costs. You mention a few of the minor contributors. For example, malpractice litigation and related expenses such as insurance do account for about 3% of the total. Probably the largest contributor, is the insurance industry, but there are many factors.

The bottom line is that it can be fixed, and we know how to fix it. All we need to do is look at systems which are more successful.

The fact is that, unlike the other developed countries, unless the US does something to bring its system up to international standards, the cost of healthcare will exceed 25% of GDP within 2-3 decades.

If addiction were treated as an illness in the US, say as it is treated as an illness in the Netherlands, then addicts would be at medical centers instead of being in prisons. We prosecute and incarcerate drug users in the US. We incarcerate more people, per capita, than any other developed country, and more than nearly every other country. Most of those incarcerations are drug related. You are incorrect in your perception that we treat addiction as an illness. In some cases yes, but for the most part we treat addicts as criminals.

One more excerpt from the IOM report for which the brief may be found here: iom.edu/Reports/2013/US-Health-in-International-Perspective-Shorter-Lives-Poorer-Health/Report-Brief010913.aspx
The U.S. health disadvantage cannot be fully explained by the health disparities that exist among people who are uninsured or poor, as important as these issues are. Several studies are now suggesting that even advantaged Americans— those who are white, insured, college-educated, or upper income—are in worse health than similar individuals in other countries.
Why Are Americans So Unhealthy?
The panel’s inquiry found multiple likely explanations for the U.S. health disadvantage:
Health systems. Unlike its peer countries, the United States has a relatively large uninsured population and more limited access to primary care. Americans are more likely to find their health care inaccessible or unaffordable and to report lapses in the quality and safety of care outside of hospitals.
Social and economic conditions. Although the income of Americans is higher on average than in other countries, the United States also has higher levels of poverty (especially child poverty) and income inequality and lower rates of social mobility. Other countries are outpacing the United States in the education of young people, which also affects health. And Americans benefit less from safety net programs that can buffer the negative health effects of poverty and other social disadvantages.
The problems are related to poverty, which is why talking about it is not irrelevant to this thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top