Should salaries be capped?

[rlg94086]

Yes I have thought through my answers, have you?

You are making things up as to why YOU THINK companies need to shrink. You are suggesting that ONLY the founders are worthy of huge salaries but dismissing the work of those folks who may salvage a company from ruin or choose a new path for the company? You ignore the economies of scale in a world economy and suggest that smaller will work when it clearly can only work in SOME circumstances. You suggest that people only get their jobs because of the golf score and not their management skills. You suggest that a CEO must be qualified to do specific tasks within the company but ignore the fact that his job is not to do those things but to lead a divergent group of people to greater success. Heck as a sales rep for our company I couldn’t use our telephone system at work to successfully transfer a call to someone in the warehouse but that didn’t stop me from getting a string of promotions and leading the company to grow from $23 Million in sales to nearly $150,000,000.00 in sales and vastly grow the workforce and then buy out the ownership so that the employees actually owned the company.

Sorry I don’t buy into the sort of socialistic theory and class/job envy others favor.

Very well stated.

I have no problem with a corporation to decide to cap executive salaries, but it is not the place of government to do it. Are CEOs overpaid? Some are…some aren’t. Does it bother me when a company lays off employees and then gives bonuses to executives? Absolutley, but more than likely they were contractually obligated to pay those bonuses. “Golden parachutes” and bonuses are negotiated when an executive is brought on board. Should companies not agree to these things? Perhaps, but they will then have to pass on talented executives they need to successfully run their company.

Regarding sports, it is pretty much the same. Do I think some sports stars are overpaid? Yes. Why? Economics, of course. In order to make money, you have to fill the stadium. To fill the stadium, you need to win games. To win games, you need talent. Talent costs money. Now, if you pay the talent exhorbitantly and the seats don’t fill because fans don’t want to pay the money for the seats? You go out of business. (Mind you, it’s not all seats anymore…TV contracts are huge).

Personally, I work on my own attachment to money and other sins. I don’t worry too much about the sins of CEOs. Thankfully, they and their companies provide jobs to the rest of us, so we can feed our families and be affluent enough to buy computers, pay for internet service, and rant on a forum.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Two points:

1. Isn’t it interesting how many people are willing to sacrifice someone else’s money to solve the problems of the world, but not to get to work and earn enough to contribute on the same scale?
2. If the majority of companies were losing money and buying out their CEO’s contracts for big bucks, the stock market wouldn’t be above 13,000. It wouldn’t be above 130!

 

[melensdad]

Very well stated.

But I forgot to add that I do not/did not golf at any time during my working career so clearly the whole concept of golf scores and golf buddies being the reason for success, as proposed by others, is simple hogwash.

BTW, you made some excellent points too. I do think that it is outrageous that sports teams pay players $300,000,000 for 10 year contracts, but as outrageous as it is, I could not do the job that is being asked of that person, so clearly that athlete is better qualified than me! Consequently that athlete is able to demand more money for service than I. Therefore while I think it is outrageous to pay that money, I do NOT begrudge the athlete his/her salary and am glad for them that they possess the skills that allow them to be at/near the top of their field.

Isn’t it interesting how many people are willing to sacrifice someone else’s money to solve the problems of the world, but not to get to work and earn enough to contribute on the same scale?

Yup, class envy and an inability to do the same job, therefore job envy. Jealousy, in one word.

If the majority of companies were losing money and buying out their CEO’s contracts for big bucks, the stock market wouldn’t be above 13,000. It wouldn’t be above 130!

Which again goes to my point that we are talking about a very very very very small group of people who earn this type of money, and then an even SMALLER group who work in a situation where there is salary abuse.

Consequently I still see no reason for salary caps and I still find threads like this very distasteful. Given the real facts about the RARITY of this type of abuse, what is the moral justification for salary caps?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Which again goes to my point that we are talking about a very very very very small group of people who earn this type of money, and then an even SMALLER group who work in a situation where there is salary abuse.

Consequently I still see no reason for salary caps and I still find threads like this very distasteful. Given the real facts about the RARITY of this type of abuse, what is the moral justification for salary caps?

To your diagnosis of class envy, job envy and jealousy, add bigotry – the willingness to paint a whole class of people with a very nasty brush, based on a preconcieved notion.

 

[rlg94086]

I agree…take the NHL for example. A back-up goalie will make, at minimum, 250,000 a year, and plays maybe 10 games a year, the rest he sits on a bench the flies around the continent.

Compare that to a high level doctor who takes probably 10 years of school and 10 more years of work to get to that salary but probably works 100000x harder then that goalie.

NHL?! I can’t believe you would use an NHL goalie making $250k/year as your example. Compared to other sports (especiallly baseball and basketball), hockey players are paid peanuts. I realize you are a Canuck, but hockey? Overpaid?

I agree $250k is an okay salary (pretty low, so I’m guessing he is a recent draft?) , but…how many years will he be making that? If he is only playing 10 games per year, not many…unless he improves. If a player gets seriously injured their first year…they’re out…hope they actually went to college and got a decent degree.

I’ve known and met a few professional athletes - a couple of successful hockey players (both played pro into their 30’s - one is now a coach and the other owns a sporting goods store not far from you), a one-season football player (injured, he became a salesman in the same field I am in) and an agent/manager who played 10 years in the NFL. They were all down-to-earth guys who are working on the same sins you and I have to work on. None of them reach the mega-salaries of the superstars or top CEOs…well maybe the agent/manager - I don’t know what he makes.

 

[rlg94086]

But I forgot to add that I do not/did not golf at any time during my working career so clearly the whole concept of golf scores and golf buddies being the reason for success, as proposed by others, is simple hogwash.

Not complete hogwash, but definitely overstated. The golf course is a great place for relationship building. I would not consider myself a “golfer” though I do golf occasionally (i.e. approx. once per year) with customers/managers. I think the best I’ve golfed is 125. Anyway, no one is hired based on their golfing ability. But, the relationship they made may help them to be thought of when an opening comes around. The old adage “it’s not what you know but who you know” is half right. You do need to know, but knowing the right people can help.

BTW, you made some excellent points too. I do think that it is outrageous that sports teams pay players $300,000,000 for 10 year contracts, but as outrageous as it is, I could not do the job that is being asked of that person, so clearly that athlete is better qualified than me! Consequently that athlete is able to demand more money for service than I. Therefore while I think it is outrageous to pay that money, I do NOT begrudge the athlete his/her salary and am glad for them that they possess the skills that allow them to be at/near the top of their field.

Yep, and despite their “high” pay, their job isn’t all glory. People mainly focus on the superstars, but they are a small percentage. There are a lot of athletes whose careers are cut very short. They all risk serious injuries. They all give up stability (I know in the case of hockey players, they get traded with no notice and have to pick up and move. Most of us wouldn’t like that much…yeah, yeah, I know…“look at how much they are paid though!” ).

 

[He_Man]

I think some poeple see a blanket number for a salary, and because THEY do not see value in a person’s job (athletes), they see it as too much money. Does anyone actually have figures on HOW MUCH revenue an athlete brings into a program? In many cases, they earn less than they bring in by orders of magnitude.

The problem with this sort of thinking is how does anyone decide who needs to have their salaries restructured, and who makes too much money?

Private organizations can do this (ala the NFL’s salary cap), but this is not the business of the government.

First, we would have to change the constitution in a number of ways. Secondly, we would have to make arbitrary decisions about certain wage amounts. Thirdly, we would have to decide which jobs WERE actually important; teachers or nurses? Athletes who bring in FAR more money in revenue for a city than everyone on this website combined will ever do (one example).

Also, how to treat underpaid federal jobs like the military? Is anyone going to argue that our troops make enough money, given what they go through.

And the excuse that “they volunteered” doesn’t work, because every person who has a job volunteered. I don’t know any teachers who were coerced into their career of choice.

People DO HAVE free will, and by and large they choose careers they want to. Perhaps they shouldn’t choose one with low salaries IF salary is such a big deal to them??? I knew my ceiling was limited as a USAF officer. I knew I would do well as an eletrical engineer in the civilian world. I also knew I would never make millions as an EE either, though. All of those were decisions I made years ago, which I accept. We are a product of those decisions. Perhaps if we were willing to make the same decisions, we wouldn’t be unhappy with how much we made???

This is not to say that there are not BASIC human rights we need to address (food, shelter, clothing, education, healthcare). But salaries?

There is areason helping the poor has always been the business of religion and charities. That isn’t the role of the government.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Here’s hint – if atheletes or CEOs did not, in general, bring in more money than they are paid, the teams and businesses would go bankrupt.

To those who complain that other people are overpaid, I say, go and apply for the jobs those “overpaid” people are doing. Do those jobs as well or better than the incumbents – and do it under the salary caps you advocate.

 

[melensdad]

To your diagnosis of class envy, job envy and jealousy, add bigotry – the willingness to paint a whole class of people with a very nasty brush, based on a preconcieved notion.

Vern you really hit the nail on the head with that point.

There is a lot of broad brushstroke commenting about the high salaries earned and talked about. Some people seem to suggest that the only way to pay these high salaries is to exploit someone else. Others suggest that only certain types of people should be able to earn these extraordinary salaries.

In any case, the people making these suggestions are showing a bigotry toward ‘others’ as if they were talking about ‘blacks’ or ‘indians’ or** ‘Muslims’** or ‘Jews’ or Catholics in much the same way that people like Hitler did in pre-world war II propaganda.

• First you set the people apart.
• Then you degrade them as an unworthy group.
• Then you berate them as individuals blaming each for the sins of a few.
• Finally you kill them* (or in this case you legislate against them because you think they are getting more than their so-called ‘fair’ share).*

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern you really hit the nail on the head with that point.

There is a lot of broad brushstroke commenting about the high salaries earned and talked about. Some people seem to suggest that the only way to pay these high salaries is to exploit someone else. Others suggest that only certain types of people should be able to earn these extraordinary salaries.

In any case, the people making these suggestions are showing a bigotry toward ‘others’ as if they were talking about ‘blacks’ or ‘indians’ or** ‘Muslims’** or ‘Jews’ or Christians in much the same way that people like Hitler did in pre-world war II propaganda. First you set the people apart. Then you degrade them as an unworthy group. Then you berate them as individuals blaming each for the sins of a few. Finally you kill them (or in this case you legislate against them because you think they are getting more than their so-called ‘fair’ share).

And you don’t ever, ever, ever get off your duff and earn as much money as these people do – or even half as much – so you can contribute your fair share.

 

[He_Man]

Here’s hint – if atheletes or CEOs did not, in general, bring in more money than they are paid, the teams and businesses would go bankrupt.

To those who complain that other people are overpaid, I say, go and apply for the jobs those “overpaid” people are doing. Do those jobs as well or better than the incumbents – and do it under the salary caps you advocate.

But then there wouldn’t be any free time to complain, would there?

 

[manualman]

I love how the Reaganites all chant “class envy, class envy” as if it were some sort of mantra that would make the financial manipulations in our economy vanish and eliminate the genuine ways in which those who work in close proximity to enormous sums of money manage to snag rather a lot of it along the way.

The very term ‘class envy’ irritates me. Last time I checked, America was supposed to HAVE NO social class system. We are a nation of human beings of equal value and status. Certainly, some have always and will always have opportunities that others lack. This does not place them in a different class.

I’m no stranger to the system. I’ve got no complaint about my income, nor an envious desire to be a bigshot. I’m a consultant to developers and I know VERY clearly how the game is played.

Discussion like this always degenerate into name calling. Its too bad that even on a catholic forum you can’t convince people that the old canard that we must chose between socialism and unrestrained capitalism is a lie. Free enterprise can exist in a tax structure that discourages excessive accumulation in the hands of but a few.

Socialism will never work because a government bureacracy can never efficiently plan an economy like market demands can. Unrestrained capitalism, contrary to popular belief, is not the same as a free market economy. Rather, it is the belief that if you establish a system that favors the CAPITAList (the guys with the money to invest), everything will take care of itself. Distributism repudiates the idea that the investor is the good guy in a free market and instead functionally favors the entrepenuer, the inventor, the guy who sticks his neck out and opens a business.

Gotta hand it to the capitalists though. They sure know how to market and sell a false dillemma. No wonder, I suppose.

 

[aurora77]

***People DO HAVE free will, and by and large they choose careers they want to. Perhaps they shouldn’t choose one with low salaries IF salary is such a big deal to them???***Exactly. We decide, through our educational and vocational choices what kind of career to have. I’m a professional artist. I’m very good at what I do and have a large clientele. No one is ever going to pay me $10 M a year to do what I do.

If there are going to be salary caps, they should be left up to companies, not the government. It’s treading very dangerous waters to have the gov’t determine what we can and can’t be paid. First it’s the big earners, then it’s the rest of us.

 

[vern_humphrey]

But then there wouldn’t be any free time to complain, would there?

You put your finger on it.

I propose we have a leisure tax. We match each person who complains with a “rich” person – someone who earned his position. We match them by age, health and IQ. And we collect the same tax from each.

Now, the complainer will say, “But I don’t maaaaake as much as he does!”

And we reply, “Then get off your lazy duff and get to work.”

 

[rlg94086]

I love how the **Reaganites **all chant “class envy, class envy” as if it were some sort of mantra that would make the financial manipulations in our economy vanish and eliminate the genuine ways in which those who work in close proximity to enormous sums of money manage to snag rather a lot of it along the way.

The very term ‘class envy’ irritates me. Last time I checked, America was supposed to HAVE NO social class system. We are a nation of human beings of equal value and status. Certainly, some have always and will always have opportunities that others lack. This does not place them in a different class.

Discussion like this always degenerate into name calling. Its too bad that even on a catholic forum you can’t convince people that the old canard that we must chose between socialism and unrestrained capitalism is a lie. Free enterprise can exist in a tax structure that discourages excessive accumulation in the hands of but a few.

Socialism will never work because a government bureacracy can never efficiently plan an economy like market demands can. Unrestrained capitalism, contrary to popular belief, is not the same as a free market economy. Rather, it is the belief that if you establish a system that favors the CAPITAList (the guys with the money to invest), everything will take care of itself. Distributism repudiates the idea that the investor is the good guy in a free market and instead functionally favors the entrepenuer, the inventor, the guy who sticks his neck out and opens a business.

Gotta hand it to the capitalists though. They sure know how to market and sell a false dillemma. No wonder, I suppose.

Yes…thank you for taking the high road and not resorting to name-calling.

For the record, I didn’t vote for Reagan either of his two elections (well, I wasn’t of age for the first one, but I didn’t support him then either), so I am not sure if I qualify as a “Reaganite.” However, as a I have matured and gained in knowledge, I do tend to be more conservative.

That said, government-imposed salary caps are a bad idea. It is not just a conservative principle, as you would probably find a pretty split vote from liberals on the idea as well. The only result I can see from salary caps, is that the erstwhile CEOs would start their own businesses as sole proprietors or partners with others and never spread their wealth to shareholders. That way, they can keep as much money as they want to. You can’t cap a business-owner’s “salary.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

The very term ‘class envy’ irritates me. Last time I checked, America was supposed to HAVE NO social class system.

Then why are you working so hard to divide us into classes – spreading envy and venom about the “rich,” the “Reaganites” and so on?

 

[melensdad]

I love how the Reaganites all . . .

Notice how in my prior post about the tactics used by Hitler how people start out by splitting people into groups just like ‘manualman’ did here.

The very term ‘class envy’ irritates me.

Still, the term applies here and is being used very effectively in the early parts of this thread.

Last time I checked, America was supposed to HAVE NO social class system.

If you define classes strictly in a narrow “social” class basis then I would agree, but if you were to use a realistic view of socio-economic classes then we clearly have those and only the blind can’t see that. What we have is not a classless system but a system that does not lock people into socio-economic classes. We have a system that allows people to change socio-economic classes, but nowhere does it say that we don’t have classes.

We are a nation of human beings of equal value and status. Certainly, some have always and will always have opportunities that others lack. This does not place them in a different class.

Again, if you only look at the very narrow “social” class type of definition like exists in India then you are correct, but we don’t have such a system here.

Discussion like this always degenerate into name calling.

See the very first line of your post

Gotta hand it to the capitalists though. They sure know how to market and sell a false dillemma. No wonder, I suppose.

So now you are vilinizing the ‘capitalists’ as the problem. Again, go back and see my post about the tactics used by Hitler.

Funny, but I don’t recall anyone here suggesting that unbridled capitalism is the answer. What was suggested is that we don’t need a socialistic form of theory injected into pay rates within private companies. But with regard to capitalism, it was Pope John Paul II who suggested that a democratic form of government, combined with a regulated capitalistic economy like exists in the western nations, is the most socially just form of society. But all that seems to be off the topic of this thread so I’m curious why you even injected the ‘capitalistic’ concept and suggested some form of unregulated capitalism is what some folks here might espouse? Unless you are trying to change topics and confuse the discussion. Obfuscation of the issues was another tactic used by Hitler’s propaganda network.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Here’s hint – if atheletes or CEOs did not, in general, bring in more money than they are paid, the teams and businesses would go bankrupt.

This is absolutely untrue. Take for example, Lee Scott the CEO of Wal-mart. He makes $5.6 million per year. This is a drop in the bucket compared to the $11.3 billion dollars that Wal-mart made in profit. Even if Lee Scott adds nothing the the profits of the company, Wal-mart is not going to be in danger of going bankrupt.

 

[vern_humphrey]

This is absolutely untrue. Take for example, Lee Scott the CEO of Wal-mart. He makes $5.6 million per year. This is a drop in the bucket compared to the $11.3 billion dollars that Wal-mart made in profit. Even if Lee Scott adds nothing the the profits of the company, Wal-mart is not going to be in danger of going bankrupt.

What school of economics did you graduate from?

 

[rlg94086]

This is absolutely untrue. Take for example, Lee Scott the CEO of Wal-mart. He makes $5.6 million per year. This is a drop in the bucket compared to the $11.3 billion dollars that Wal-mart made in profit. Even if Lee Scott adds nothing the the profits of the company, Wal-mart is not going to be in danger of going bankrupt.

Um…that didn’t disprove Vern’s statement. He is “bringing in” much more money than he is being paid, in that what he “brings in” is measured by the profitability of the company. Unless they start paying him billions, or their profits fall down to the single-digit millions, you are correct that they aren’t in danger of being bankrupt. Although, if they drop that fast, Mr. Scott probably won’t be there very long.