Should salaries be capped?

[rlg94086]

Is there some special virtue in leaving the door open when you sit on the pot?

I don’t know…but if they give me a wink and a nod…or tap their foot, I’m outta there!

 

[manualman]

I must have missed something. Who claimed that?

It is a fact that whining about your situation won’t help to improve it; however, that is not to say that the situation is wholly the whiners fault. It is how we deal with adversity that makes the difference.

Huh? Didn’t you just deny saying this? Are the persistantly poor or are they not in that condition because they ‘deal with adversity poorly?’ I just want to know your actual position.

 

[anthony022071]

It’s funny how people are smart enough to make the money for all this stuff, but at the same time are so stupid their purchases are “provoked by company advertizements.”

Well,if the wasteful expenditures of Americans are stupid,it’s the kind of stupidity that helps keep the economy rolling. The wasteful expenditures must be considered justified by the results,as far as economists are concerned. Companies are counting on the effectiveness of their advertizements (to provoke people into buying their product) to stay in business.
It’s a paradox of the economy: if Americans throughout the country became more shrewd and conservative with their money,it would be to their own individualistic advantage,but the national economy would dry up for a downturn in sales. On the one hand,economists who are concerned for the national economy want Americans to be wasteful in their buying habits,so that the economy with stay afloat;while on the other hand,economists advise people to be frugal,so that they can stay afloat in the economy.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I don’t know…but if they give me a wink and a nod…or tap their foot, I’m outta there!

You and me both, you and me both.

By the way, is it just me, or has anyone else noticed the other side in this debate has become less articulate and has started resorting to personal attacks?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Huh? Didn’t you just deny saying this? Are the persistantly poor or are they not in that condition because they ‘deal with adversity poorly?’ I just want to know your actual position.

I really wish you would provide English translations.

But if I can penetrate to what I think you mean, the answer is that while some people are poor because of conditions truly beyond their control, others are poor because they made bad choices – and often made them wilfully.

I work with a lot of poor people – and if I could get them off drugs, most of them could support themselves.

We have a lot of children born out of wedlock – to mothers who dropped out of high school. Those are two bad decisions – to have sex before marriage and to drop out of school.

So yes, in my actual experience, a lot of poor people are poor because of their own bad decisions.

 

[Maui71]

Claiming that poverty is entirely the fault of the defects of the poor is as revolting a rejection of catholic teaching as that spouted by “Catholics for a Free Choice” or “Call to Action.”

I don’t believe anyone has claimed that but neither can you say that the poor are completely blameless. But that begs to point out are you talking about the poor say in a city like Miami, Dallas, Chicago, DC and L.A. or do you mean in a country like Cuba or Guatemala?

While I was speaking about the poor in the U.S. they are the only ones that really have a choice about health care. Because for the most part it is their choice to be where they are save for illness or physical ailment.

The poor in the cities mentioned are rich compared to the poor in the countries mentioned. So poor is relative to the perspective of your stepping stool.

I will give you a perfect example a close friend of mine from Colombia left his country because he was threatened by the Cartels. He was a police inspector (equivalent of district attorney) for the city of Medellin and he had put many people in Jail. So he sought political asylum and got it in the U.S.

He came without a penny in his name about 2 thousand dollars in his bank account. He started working as a security guard (this is an attorney in his country) 2 shifts a day. Saved money and began getting various certifications, worked better shits, save more money and got licenses, worked for a better company and worked more shifts, saved money and started his own security guard company! He has now been in the US 6 years owns a security guard and guard dog company, his own ranch in Texas and employs about 12 people and 5 dogs.

But I did not tell you the worst part of the story. He was held for 6 months as a slave for some guy who took him to his ranch to train his dogs sixty miles from the city and left him there. He had no phone to call the police and no car to drive out. He survived by eating dog food! He was able to escape because the mail man came by the house because the mail box had fallen down! So he asked the mail man to call the police for him or to drive him to town! This happened in Texas!

So if you are poor and born in the US and are not physically or mentally impaired (even physically impaired you can still make it look at Hawkins) you really have no excuse. You have free primary education, subsidized trade or college education and financed graduate and post graduate education, the only thing holding you back is you.

 

[stinkcat_14]

In the end it is the responsibility of the Board of Directors to oversee management’s strategic plan and the results of its implementation. It is their responsibility to make corrections and adjustments if they feel the direction is not correct. They can also limit the CEO on how or when stocks are bought and it is usually a board vote to acquire treasury stock. It does not happen out of the blue.

Of course the question here is: who does the board work for? In theory, they have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders. However, they are usually nominated for the position by the management of the company, and if they become too outspoken management may try to eliminate them from the board. So they may have more of an allegiance towards management than is desirable.

For example, Warren Buffet has been critical of some of the incentive problems in our current executive compensation systems. It is also true he is rarely put on the compensation committee for the boards of directors that he serves on. Could it be that he is not seen as friendly enough towards management?

 

[whatevergirl]

Of course the question here is: who does the board work for? In theory, they have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders. However, they are usually nominated for the position by the management of the company, and if they become too outspoken management may try to eliminate them from the board. So they may have more of an allegiance towards management than is desirable.

For example, Warren Buffet has been critical of some of the incentive problems in our current executive compensation systems. It is also true he is rarely put on the compensation committee for the boards of directors that he serves on. Could it be that he is not seen as friendly enough towards management?

Could be that they view it as a conflict of interest, and that he wouldn’t be unbiased enough. Warren Buffet–he is my business hero.

 

[ribozyme]

So if you are poor and born in the US and are not physically or mentally impaired (even physically impaired you can still make it look at Hawkins) you really have no excuse. You have free primary education, subsidized trade or college education and financed graduate and post graduate education, the only thing holding you back is you.

Unfortunately, there will never be any justice… there will always be “incompetent” people who do not have the capacity to achieve. That’s what happens when talent is distributed via a bell curve and through stochastic processes that we (currently) cannot control. I think you are blaming people for their lack of success, but you have to remember that their lack of success is due to factors they cannot control nor can be rectified by even a extremely distributionist agenda.

I do not know if controlling these processes will create or more just world or exacerbate existing inequalities. Much can be gained by controlling these processes, but it may create an unpalatable world of extreme inequality.

 

[whatevergirl]

Not everyone is meant to be a CEO…how would companies function if everyone was the CEO, or wanted to be CEO? LOL Being a CEO is not the only way one can become wealthy, and frankly, the job appears to have a lot of headaches, if you ask me. They are like the QB in most football games–a hero when everything is going great–and blamed when things aren’t.

Everyone’s job is necessary to the bottom line. Good CEO’s, like those mentioned in ‘Good to Great’ for example,are not pompous self seeking fools, who don’t care about their staff. They are often behind the scenes, and are the best at motivating people to their utmost potential. That being said…I think spreading the wealth in companies is important. Profit sharing programs not only help people with their personal finances, but they are morale boosters.

 

[Maui71]

Unfortunately, there will never be any justice… there will always be “incompetent” people who do not have the capacity to achieve. That’s what happens when talent is distributed via a bell curve and through stochastic processes that we (currently) cannot control. I think you are blaming people for their lack of success, but you have to remember that their lack of success is due to factors they cannot control nor can be rectified by even a extremely distributionist agenda.

I do not know if controlling these processes will create or more just world or exacerbate existing inequalities. Much can be gained by controlling these processes, but it may create an unpalatable world of extreme inequality.

Rib

I understand and totally accept that there will never be “parity” but I believe there is justice and equity. The trap of what people can control and cannot control is that people believe that life should be fair and it certainly is not and never will be.

I am not criticizing people for a lack of success. Success means something different for everyone so I cannot criticize a variable definition. What I am saying is that anyone who is not impaired and lives in the US has the means and tools available to them to live above poverty as defined in the US. I am not saying that if someone does not become a tycoon or ceo is not successful. I myself am neither. I guess I did not articulate myself. Anyone in this country, even if they do not speak English, should be able to live a comfortable decent life. What is a comfortable decent life to me: Have a place to live, warm water running water, electricity, food for 3 squares a day, and clean clothing.

I just don’t agree that it is a problem that the “poor” cannot fix given my exceptions. Everyone has the “control” to choose how to respond to every circumstance presented them. That choice determines their overall outcome. I mean what do you consider poor? Are we comparing apples to apples? I really don’t think we are.

 

[ribozyme]

Rib

I understand and totally accept that there will never be “parity” but I believe there is justice and equity. The trap of what people can control and cannot control is that people believe that life should be fair and it certainly is not and never will be.

Anyone in this country, even if they do not speak English, should be able to live a comfortable decent life. What is a comfortable decent life to me: Have a place to live, warm water running water, electricity, food for 3 squares a day, and clean clothing.

I just don’t agree that it is a problem that the “poor” cannot fix given my exceptions. Everyone has the “control” to choose how to respond to every circumstance presented them. That choice determines their overall outcome. I mean what do you consider poor? Are we comparing apples to apples? I really don’t think we are.

People are impaired in ways that might not be apparent to you… do not pretend that almost “everyone has the “control” to choose how to respond to every circumstance presented them” when this is not correct as they might not have the capacity to decide that is best for them.

For example:

Life is difficult at the low end of the IQ bell curve (IQ 75 and below), as anthropologists have poignantly documented for mildly retarded adults (e.g., Edgerton, 1993, deinstitutionalized retarded adults; Gazaway, 1969, a low-IQ White Appalachian community; Koegel & Edgerton, 1984, Black inner-city special
education students as adults). This is the “high risk” zone: high risk of failing elementary school, being unmasked as incompetent in daily affairs (making change, reading a letter, filling out a job application, understanding doctors’ instructions, monitoring one’s young children), being cheated by merchants and exploited by friends and relatives, remaining unemployed, dependent, and socially isolated, and “consistently fail[ing] to understand certain important aspects of the world in which they live, and so regularly find[ing] themselves unable to cope with some demands of this world” (Edger-ton, 1993, p. 222). Many eventually lead satisfying lives, but only with the help of a benefactor or strong social support network or only after a long struggle to find a self-affirming social niche.

…

As noted before, they are prohibited from enlisting in the military, and no civilian jobs routinely recruit them. They are increasingly vulnerable-and unemployable-as unskilled jobs disappear.

udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997whygmatters.pdf

Some might not have a “benefactor” or a “strong social support network.” Do not pretend that they “change trades, professions or positions” easily. Reality sunders that individualistic chimerical fantasy.

The person that cannot afford health care can either accept their position or do something to change it. They can change trades, professions or positions. I think the bigger issue is; are the people that can’t afford health care, school, or anything else, willing to pay the price, make the sacrifice, and have the desire to better their lot? Everyone can give 1,000 reasons why they can’t do it, better themselves, change, but it is only those that give 1 reason why they can that actually do.

But you have to remember the private insurers are not going to cover “pre-existing” conditions either. What did they do to deserve a “pre-existing” condition. Maybe they inherited the wrong genes and this is something that one currently has no control (currently).

I want to fix inequality in assets now because I fear the technology of the future will exacerbate those inequalities further.

 

[Maui71]

People are impaired in ways that might not be apparent to you… do not pretend that almost “everyone has the “control” to choose how to respond to every circumstance presented them” when this is not correct as they might not have the capacity to decide that is best for them.

First, I clearly stated that people that do NOT have an impairment are not included in my generalization.

Some might not have a “benefactor” or a “strong social support network.” Do not pretend that they “change trades, professions or positions” easily. Reality sunders that individualistic chimerical fantasy.

I speak from personal experience not from an assumption. Further, most of my childhood friends come from a similar “poor and unfortunate” background. They too have had the desire for change and did so. I went to college at 28 and graduated at 30 changed my entire life paid for it 100% with student loans. I did live at the bottom.

But you have to remember the private insurers are not going to cover “pre-existing” conditions either. What did they do to deserve a “pre-existing” condition. Maybe they inherited the wrong genes and this is something that one currently has no control (currently).

I want to fix inequality in assets now because I fear the technology of the future will exacerbate those inequalities further.

What did the trust baby do to deserve a life of never having to work and wealth beyond most peoples attainability? Nothing. That plays to the point of life being unfair. Carry your cross and praise God.

Inequality is needed, if everyone was on top of the mountain it would cease to be a mountain the peak would break. You really are pointing something out that has nothing to do with equality you really are saying that you want to end suffering. But suffering is as much a part of life as is DNA. You cannot ever remove suffering from life rather it should be embraced just as the Lord embraced his suffering.

When you see suffering as something normal and to embrace I don’t think you would want to create equality.

 

[consumedconvert]

Distributism will never come to be if we seek to impose it by direct limits on income. On knee jerk basis, I’d love to see it happen, but that particular medicine would be worse than the disease (always beware the unintended consequences of new law!). Something DOES need to be done, however. There is certainly a club of VERY chummy country club fraternity brothers that appoints one another to boards, nominates each other for CEO positions and generally looks out for each other at the expense of the interest of stockholders and employees. The structure of the system combined with the fallen part of our human nature almost guarantee it!

IMO, the best way to combat it is with a tax structure that is punitive towards mega-corporations and friendlier to smaller companies. For example, Walmart can force manufacturers to sell to them for less based on volume. Why not tax them more to level out the playing field again? The vultures of the financial world are drawn to the big corporations because of their deep pockets. If they all broke up into SMALLER companies it would be MUCH harder for the limited number of frat boys to dominate the boards.

The next best step towards Distributism is a big, fat heavy death tax and elimination of the trust fund loopholes. Taxation of inheritence won’t stifle investment, innovation and risk like taxation of income and profits do, so have at it. This will also hit the oligarchs hard and require each new generation to earn his own way instead of merely leveraging daddy’s capital and rolodex.

We’ll never get a Distributist economy by trying to impose limits on personal achievement. Instead we should target the structures that foster excessive concentration of wealth: mega-corporations and inheritence.

Hmmm, you have very interesting ideas. I’ve just started reading ChesterBelloc on this issue; it’s obvious you know them well. Perhaps in the future you or I should start a thread on “Is distributism dead for good?” Let’s hope it’s not!

Also, I appreciate your defence of the poor. It certainly is NOT every poor person’s fault that they are poor. “Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, son” may be a classic American philosophy, but it is not the response of the Church to the poor.

Also, I take issue with the suggestion that health insurance is somehow accessible to everyone, especially the poor. The health insurance system (a senseless morass if there ever was one) penalizes people who do not work for big corps. Ask an entrepreneur how much he pays for health insurance; it’s often more than his mortgage. With healthcare so expensive that one health issue–say, the premature birth of a child–can exceed $100,000 and lead to bankruptcy (unless the patient is fortunate enough to stumble onto a good Catholic hospital who forgives debts–they do exist!), there’s no question that there are many poor who didn’t get there by “bad decisions.”

This isn’t about class envy; I like the small business I work for, and I get paid enough. And I’m not a Nazi, either

Melensdad, I think you’re rather over-glorifying Wal-Mart. Workers there don’t get paid much; many don’t have health care. They got bad press because they encouraged some of their employees to go on welfare. “We Sell For Less”–true, but at what cost? They squeeze their employees, their suppliers (and consequently the employees of their suppliers) and are known for their ruthless competition. Blech.

BTW Melensdad, I do agree that Americans live much too luxuriently. You can’t even find an 1800 square foot house in many places anymore, and we burn through money and savings like there’s no tomorrow. Double blech.

 

[ribozyme]

I musta took a wrong turn somewhere. Thought I was at catholic answers and found I was at the Ayn Rand fan club site!

Chesterton and Belloc must be rolling in their graves. Not to mention Pope Leo XIII. For anybody who cares to hear what the Church teaches on the matter THIS is a great start: papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13rerum.htm

Claiming that poverty is entirely the fault of the defects of the poor is as revolting a rejection of catholic teaching as that spouted by “Catholics for a Free Choice” or “Call to Action.”

No, this isn’t Catholic Answers or the “Social Justice” forum, it is the Ayn Rand fan club!! :ehh: Very perceptive observation…

Let’s take a look at these posts in the “Socialism” thread:

History has shown that it is not necessary for people to “work for the greater good”? Do you have some evidence this is important, or does it just have a good ring to it when people say the words?

We’ve already conceded that capitalism produces more, even for the poor and those that choose not to participate but value their cable TV more.

People spend their own money very selfishly. But that’s the beauty of capitalism. When they spend the money they are employing others. People don’t actually get nearly as much for their hard work and money as you might imagine. Capitalism allows for a framework where that waste is recaptured and quickly recycled into value.

Selfishness also does not stop people from being charitable. The two are hardly mutually exclusive.

Selfishness is extremely important. It’s the force behind capitalism and the thing that makes people work hard all day long at their jobs. It’s why when you go to wal-mart there was someone there that morning that stocked the shelves for you.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=191849&page=12

 

[stinkcat_14]

Could be that they view it as a conflict of interest, and that he wouldn’t be unbiased enough. Warren Buffet–he is my business hero.

My guess is that his bias would lie towards the shareholders over management, which of course, wouldn’t be desirable for the management.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Also, I take issue with the suggestion that health insurance is somehow accessible to everyone, especially the poor. The health insurance system (a senseless morass if there ever was one) penalizes people who do not work for big corps. QUOTE]

It’s worse than that. In many big corporations, particularly industrial corporations, there exists what is called the “well worker effect”. Working in many environments requires a certain “industrial athleticism”, particularly in those industries where the work is machine driven, which is most of them. You have to reach a standard of production in order to keep up and keep your job. In non-industrial settings, the pace is often very demanding, though not as physical.

If you become ill or significantly disabled, you can’t keep up. Once your FMLA time is used up, you have to go on COBRA. Since most disabled or ill workers can’t pay the premiums under COBRA, their coverage lapses. So, in many businesses, the health coverage is, to a large degree, illusory. Because of the “well worker effect”, such businesses get huge discounts from “Reasonable and Necessary” medical costs. That’s why it’s easier for some giant corporation to pay for health insurance than it is for an individual or a sole proprietor. I know whereof I speak. At one time, I negotiated for an insurer with medical providers. For me, the “starting point” was Medicare cost, which is supposed to be 60% of “Reasonable and Necessary” (retail) medical charges. From Medicare Rate, I always negotiated downward, and always got big discounts. So, my client was paying less than 60% for care than a person who is self-pay. Because of the volume and because the “well workers” did not typically have super-expensive catastrophic coverage for very long if they became ill, the medical providers were happy to make those deals. Most of the care was kept within “primary care”; they drove down the salaries of primary care physicians relative to other costs, and put those physicians on production quotas. NPs and PAs, who earn even less, are slowly displacing primary care physicians. So the insurers are mostly spared from the really expensive stuff.

And, of course, Medicare allows providers to build their costs into their charges to Medicare. That includes the staggeringly high salaries of those who operate them, the duplicative machinery and services, and the gold-plated buildings one sees going up everywhere. That, then, pushes “Reasonable and Necessary” costs higher and higher. The truth is, 60% of “Reasonable and Necessary”, or even less, is highly profitable.

It’s all a horrible mess, and it will be the most difficult thing in the world to fix. Since so many are so invested in it, and since the money involved is so massive, I’m not sure it will get fixed. One would almost have to dismantle the whole system and start over. Of course, no politician will touch it because their opponents will accuse them of “cheating seniors” or “oppressing the poor” or “hurting children” or whatever, when it’s really the medical, industrial and insurance magnates who are “getting well” on the system. Those who want to expand the system to get more people “covered” are just serving those interests. Real reform is what is needed, but none of them want to tackle that because there’s no campaign contribution money in doing so, and lots of money that will oppose it.

The whole thing is much worse than most people realize it is.

 

[manualman]

In reviewing the post history, I find I may be guilty of hijacking. The OP was about capping CEO salaries, period. I read between the lines regading his comments on Distributism and hijacked the thread into a discussion on Distributism as a whole, not just the idea of capping CEO salaries. But the OP has recently weighed in and expressed interest, so I’m gonna take that as a blessing of the hijack!

Maui, you made some statements that warrant significant scrutiny. You told a nice anecdote about penniless immigrant success and concluded from it that all able bodied and minded poor people could be just as successful if they just got off their duffs and applied themselves. Does that sum it up fairly?

If so, let’s discuss the implications. How about black folks in this country? Black Americans are MUCH more likely than the general populace to live in extreme poverty. From your line of reasoning, is the cause of this:
A. Their percentage of poverty matches their percentage of feeble-mindedness.
B. Their percentage of poverty matches their lazy slug rate.
C. Something systemic resists their movement into prosperity rates comparable to white folks.

Your arguments so far indicate that you think A or B must be the answer. But I’ll be charitable and give you another chance to consider.

Civil rights leaders usually argue that racism is the additional factor. I’m not so sure that is really it anymore. I tend to think the major difference now is educational (highly poor and black areas usually have poor schools), systemic (would-be black entrepenuers have fewer contacts in the business community to leverage start-up assistance) and cultural (despair in such communities sometimes fosters a culture of “bad is good”).

A tax system that favored small business over large public companies would go a long ways towards addressing the systemic part of that problem, IMO. (Leaving two daunting problems yet to solve - off topic).

Interestingly enough, Rerum Novarum addresses the legitimate concerns of the businessmen and property owners as well as those of the workers. Its really a document worth reading!

 

[ribozyme]

A tax system that favored small business over large public companies would go a long ways towards addressing the systemic part of that problem, IMO. (Leaving two daunting problems yet to solve - off topic).

Isn’t that what the GOP *allegedly *advocates? Of course, they never publicly say they sympathize with “big business”

 

[maurin]

Just ran across this thread and only read the op. But here’s a little personal story:

the company that I work for (higher end jewelry) was run for the past few years by a man who came from menswear. No jewelry background at all.

His greatest contribution? He bought 20,000 mediocre bracelettes to support the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer foundation for a chain of about 70 stores (SGK donates a portion of their proceeds to Planned Parenthood–I refuse to sell them, and turn over customers to co-workers who express interest). It appeared to one and all that he was trying to turn us into a “poor man’s Tiffany’s.” Our clientele is upper-middle class to wealthy. We’ve lost a lot of our “regulars” to other higher-end Jewelers.

My company was recently sold and “retired” this marketing genius. His compensation? 1.6 million dollars for “a job well-done.”

Meanwhile, they have cut our commissions by 1%. Justice!

I’m not bitter!