Should salaries be capped?

[rlg94086]

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.

Apparently, you don’t understand the meaning of adverbs. You said someone claimed it was “entirely the fault of the defects of the poor.” I have not seen anyone say that, so I am guessing you just like to use hyperbole.

I said that it is “not wholly” their fault. IOW…yes, with a few exceptions they have some culpability in their state of poverty. For most people, being poor is a transitive state. There are some who remain in poverty because of physical/mental limitations, and those people should be helped in a different manner than those who don’t have physical/mental limitations (feed the former, teach the latter to fish).

To be clear, I am speaking about the poor in America primarily, because I know poverty conditions in some third world countries are much more difficult to overcome due to their country’s resources and political systems.

 

[Al_Masetti]

The world is full of injustices and inequalities.

The beauty of the free market system is that if a company screws up, it goes away. It’s a beauty because if the company was subsidized by the government or if it was a government agency, it would just continue and keep messing up and the cost to its customers in terms of poor service and in terms to financial losses would continue indefinitely.

So, the free market economy is self-limiting.

Yes, folks do get hurt by layoffs. (Been there lots of times. And yes, it hurts.) But in the seeds of every company that folds, there is the new growth of new companies that emerge to satisfy the needs.

What would have happened if around 1900, all of the blacksmiths organized to ban that new and dangerous contraption … the automobile? Yes, the blacksmiths would have kept their jobs. But instead they “morphed” into auto mechanics and welders.

My dad used to describe huge rooms full of accountants and accounting clerks and bookkeepers manually posting numbers and adding them up. All gone. Does anyone want to go back to those days?

One of the reason for all the “mess-ups” in the health care business is that the Federal and state governments have essentially prohibited any new innovations in insurance and health care delivery. There are all kinds of innovations just waiting to be delivered, such as HSAs, for example. Such as pharmacies providing low-end medical care. Such as “para-professionals” providing low-end medical care. Such as people with appropriate masters degrees providing low-end medical care.

There was a movement afoot some years ago that generated more mail to the President and to Congress than any other … it was a plan to bring vitamins under Federal oversight. People wanted to be able to select their own vitamin dosages and they were able to defeat the proposal to inflict yet another Federal bureaucracy on them.

So, if you want cheaper, more available medical care, get rid of the Federal and state restrictions.

When we had Federal and state restrictions on energy, there were shortages. As soon as the restrictions were abolished, there was a surplus. Now we have new restrictions on energy, and the prices again are going up.

If you want growth in business, in health care, or in any area, get rid of the Federal and state bureaucracies and Federal and state restrictions. Take a look at the growth in computer technology … no Federal or state restrictions. Take a look at the growth in air travel … it was due to the Civil Aeronautics Board being eliminated … anyone can establish an airline. They many not last forever because successfully managing an airline is very tricky. Take a look at the growth in railroads and trucking … the Interstate Commerce Commission was eliminated … no more committees to determine the proper price for shipping yak fat.

Dramatic reduction of the capital gains tax structure dramatically increased investment, employment and salaries.

De-regulation works.

 

[rlg94086]

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!

A. Capping salaries won’t create a tax system that favors small business
B. Redistribution of wealth through our failed welfare system is one of the systemic causes. Redistributing more wealth is not the answer.

The greatest work in the black community is from people within the black community (Bill Cosby and Magic Johnson come to mind, but I also remember reading about a non-famous businessman who is doing great things) who are verbally smacking people around for the cultural issues and helping them start businesses.

 

[Al_Masetti]

One of the wealthiest, richest people in the world is … Oprah Winfrey.

Oprah Winfrey OWNS her television program.

Someone was complaining on her show one day about having to drive a crummy old small car. Oprah replied that she (Oprah) used to drive a Chevette … so she had no sympathy.

She is the ultimate entrepreneur.

A. Capping salaries won’t create a tax system that favors small business
B. Redistribution of wealth through our failed welfare system is one of the systemic causes. Redistributing more wealth is not the answer.

The greatest work in the black community is from people within the black community (Bill Cosby and Magic Johnson come to mind, but I also remember reading about a non-famous businessman who is doing great things) who are verbally smacking people around for the cultural issues and helping them start businesses.

 

[rlg94086]

One of the wealthiest, richest people in the world is … Oprah Winfrey.

Oprah Winfrey OWNS her television program.

Someone was complaining on her show one day about having to drive a crummy old small car. Oprah replied that she (Oprah) used to drive a Chevette … so she had no sympathy.

She is the ultimate entrepreneur.

But, she also helps a lot of poor people on her show. I saw it in *Ocean’s 13…*Clooney and Pitt’s characters cried.

From my understanding, the people she helps are truly needy. I’m not a big Oprah fan, but you can’t fault her for her giving. I wish more celebrities put their money where their mouths are.

 

[ribozyme]

The world is full of injustices and inequalities.

So, if you want cheaper, more available medical care, get rid of the Federal and state restrictions.

…

One of the reason for all the “mess-ups” in the health care business is that the Federal and state governments have essentially prohibited any new innovations in insurance and health care delivery. There are all kinds of innovations just waiting to be delivered, such as HSAs, for example. Such as pharmacies providing low-end medical care. Such as “para-professionals” providing low-end medical care. Such as people with appropriate masters degrees providing low-end medical care.

If you want growth in business, in health care, or in any area, get rid of the Federal and state bureaucracies and Federal and state restrictions. Take a look at the growth in computer technology … no Federal or state restrictions. Take a look at the growth in air travel … it was due to the Civil Aeronautics Board being eliminated … anyone can establish an airline. They many not last forever because successfully managing an airline is very tricky. Take a look at the growth in railroads and trucking … the Interstate Commerce Commission was eliminated … no more committees to determine the proper price for shipping yak fat.

Dramatic reduction of the capital gains tax structure dramatically increased investment, employment and salaries.

De-regulation works.

Health care is strongly connected with social justice, computers aren’t. I am not one to complain if I can’t afford a computer than can play “Crysis” or “Unreal Tournament 3.” However, when people cannot afford chemotherapy, it does evoke a sense of egregious moral wrong.

I will requote another message I have written:

uk.youtube.com/watch?v=15D3ElV1Jzw

That’s an amusing three minute and twenty second YouTube illustration of why government-based solutions don’t work.

So what is Newt going to purpose to track illegal immigrants? Microchip them? But many Christians will oppose them based on a passage in Revelation and civil liberty groups will complain about a lack of privacy.

Then I suppose you oppose government legislation against abortion, verdad?

Biotech drugs are especially appealing because they face no competition from generics: No regulatory pathway yet exists in the U.S. for bringing to market generic biotech drugs. So until Congress creates such a pathway, no generic threat will exist to the $4,400 a month that Genentech Inc. charges for its cancer drug Avastin, or the $200,000 a year that Genzyme Corp. gets for Cerezyme to treat Gaucher disease.

I suppose the government will mess everything up, so it is a good idea not to invoke the regulatory authorities and keep prices high.

But I suppose you respect the right of Genzyme to charge an exorbitant price for imiglucerase on the free market. I also suppose you will respect the right of parents to pay for a diagnostic test to confirm a homozygous phenotype (Gaucher’s disease is autosomal recessive) for the fetus and I also presume you support their right to pay for an abortion on the free market if a homozygous genotype is confirmed as the parents would not have to pay exorbitant co-pays for that drug.

online.wsj.com/article/SB119689933952615133.html?mod=loomia&loomia_si=t0:a16:g4:r5:c1e-09

I also think you are thrilled with idea of millions of people taking torcetrapib because that regulatory bogeyman known as the FDA shouldn’t exist:

Shouldn’t the thought of taking torcetrapib strike terror in dyslipidemic Catholics? The torcetrapib + atorvastatin arm of a 15k patient Phase III trial experienced a higher mortality rate than the placebo + atorvastatin arm content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/357/21/2109

]. In my opinion, this is one reason (and rofecoxib [the “V” word synonymous with “lawsuit” cough Vioxx cough]) why expensive clinical trials should be conducted and this probably justifies some high drug prices.

I understand the pricing for recombinant imiglucerase as the drug doesn’t have a large market as it is a treatment for a rare genetic disease and development costs need to be remunerated.

Do you want to hire private companies to fight the war on drugs instead of using federal officials to fight it? I wonder if there is a free market incentive for keeping “hard” drugs of the streets as it seems that you are also support the conservative (not libertarian) position on drug use.

 

[melensdad]

Health care is strongly connected with social justice. . .

Seems to me you are WAAAAY off topic. In fact you didn’t even address the topic.

But if you are making the stretch and trying to argue that putting a salary cap on the CEO will mean that companies will be able to afford health insurance for all the workers then I think that is so far from the truth that it is absurd.

There are probably not very many companies that have CEOs who would even qualify for a salary cap. Further, most have massive payrolls and most already offer health insurance programs.

 

[ribozyme]

Seems to me you are WAAAAY off topic. In fact you didn’t even address the topic.

But if you are making the stretch and trying to argue that putting a salary cap on the CEO will mean that companies will be able to afford health insurance for all the workers then I think that is so far from the truth that it is absurd.

There are probably not very many companies that have CEOs who would even qualify for a salary cap. Further, most have massive payrolls and most already offer health insurance programs.

Well, Al’s post was a long rant about the benefits of the free market and deregulation… didn’t mention anything about CEOs.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Health care is strongly connected with social justice, computers aren’t. I am not one to complain if I can’t afford a computer than can play “Crysis” or “Unreal Tournament 3.” However, when people cannot afford chemotherapy, it does evoke a sense of egregious moral wrong.

I will requote another message I have written:

I understand the pricing for recombinant imiglucerase as the drug doesn’t have a large market as it is a treatment for a rare genetic disease and development costs need to be remunerated.

Do you want to hire private companies to fight the war on drugs instead of using federal officials to fight it? I wonder if there is a free market incentive for keeping “hard” drugs of the streets as it seems that you are also support the conservative (not libertarian) position on drug use.

Is health care a “right”?

Are all people entitled to free medical care?

Where will you get the medical staff to provide all that free medical care?

What if there aren’t enough medical personnel to go around to provide all that free medical care?

What if there aren’t enough MRI’s and CAT scan machines available?

If health care is connected to social justice, will you arrest people and force them to go to medical school and then treat people for free?

Will you force companies to manufacture medical equipment?

Will you ration medical care?

 

[consumedconvert]

Is health care a “right”?

Are all people entitled to free medical care?

Where will you get the medical staff to provide all that free medical care?

What if there aren’t enough medical personnel to go around to provide all that free medical care?

What if there aren’t enough MRI’s and CAT scan machines available?

If health care is connected to social justice, will you arrest people and force them to go to medical school and then treat people for free?

Will you force companies to manufacture medical equipment?

Will you ration medical care?

I agree that those who can pay for health insurance and/or care should.

But let’s look at this question from another angle:

Does any society, having the ability to save a person’s life, have the right to deny that person life-saving medical treatment because he is poor and cannot pay for it?

A step further. Does any society have the right to deny a child
life-saving medical care because his parents cannot pay for it?

A step yet further. If you have the ability to save a man’s ability to walk, is it morally permissable for you to deny him that treatment because he cannot compensate you for it?

I think I need to start a new thread.

 

[Al_Masetti]

What is the name of the person that you will force to provide free health care?

If people don’t want to work in the health care industry, what will you do to force people into those jobs?

When people from Canada or Saudi Arabia have medical problems that they can’t get assistance with in their home countries, they now come to the United States.

When the U.S. gets socialized medicine, where will those people turn to …with the safety valve gone?

I agree that those who can pay for health insurance and/or care should.

But let’s look at this question from another angle:

Does any society, having the ability to save a person’s life, have the right to deny that person life-saving medical treatment because he is poor and cannot pay for it?

A step further. Does any society have the right to deny a child
life-saving medical care because his parents cannot pay for it?

A step yet further. If you have the ability to save a man’s ability to walk, is it morally permissable for you to deny him that treatment because he cannot compensate you for it?

I think I need to start a new thread.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Well, Al’s post was a long rant about the benefits of the free market and deregulation… didn’t mention anything about CEOs.

Sorry about the rant.

The point is that companies in the free market system have CEOs. The CEO is hired and fired by the Board of Directors.

If they board wants someone they perceive to have the right skill set to manage their complex company, they have to make him or her an offer that will be sufficiently enticing to get that person on board.

If the incentives are not there, the person will not take the job.

You can’t FORCE someone to take a job.

The CEO job can be a “killer” in terms of hours, stress, travel, family separation, political conflicts with the existing corporate culture, etc.

So the Board does what it takes … family relocation packages, executive jets so the CEO can get back home more often from those killer trips, a gorgeous retirement package (so the CEO doesn’t have to spend all his time trying to manage his own money), AND … [drum roll, please] … a really large current compensation package.

If the money ain’t there, he (or she) ain’t gonna take the job.

Really smart people with the right skills set are difficult to find. But those smart people can easily stay home and manage their own affairs to make money.

You gotta provide sufficient enticements to get those people on board.

As I wrote, “really smart people with the right skills set are difficult to find”. You know this because Boards do screw up. They do an elaborate search [and there is a whole industry of head hunters that constantly evaluates CEO candidates]. And they evaluate. And sometimes the person who gets the job, just doesn’t work out.

That person’s EQ just doesn’t match the challenges of the company that wants to do the hiring.

So, when they have someone who does do the job, they really want to keep that person and prevent him or her from getting hired away to run some other company.

 

[Stolen_Rutters]

Skilled CEOs are in significant demand. It costs alot to keep them working for you. Without a skilled executive staff, you can end up with an absolute mess of a company. Until the supply of the skill increases, you will probably have to pay through the nose to keep someone remotely competent working for you in that role.

 

[melensdad]

Well, Al’s post was a long rant about the benefits of the free market and deregulation… didn’t mention anything about CEOs.

Two wrongs don’t make a right. Using a wrong to justify another is still wrong.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Skilled CEOs are in significant demand. It costs alot to keep them working for you. Without a skilled executive staff, you can end up with an absolute mess of a company. Until the supply of the skill increases, you will probably have to pay through the nose to keep someone remotely competent working for you in that role.

In my opinion, this is not something that is in dispute. The problem that I am concerned with is the information problem inherent in the modern large corporation due to the separation of ownership of the corporation from the control of the corporation. In short, does the CEO of the corporation actually behave in the interests of the shareholders, or in his own interest?

The problem I am talking about is described here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_cost

 

[vern_humphrey]

In my opinion, this is not something that is in dispute. The problem that I am concerned with is the information problem inherent in the modern large corporation due to the separation of ownership of the corporation from the control of the corporation. In short, does the CEO of the corporation actually behave in the interests of the shareholders, or in his own interest?

The problem I am talking about is described here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_cost

This is an outgrowth of the “hostile takeovers” of the '70s and '80s. Good managers bought failing companies, got rid of the deadwood, repackaged them, and made money.

But because saving those failing companies involved layoffs, that was touted as “bad.” So Congress changed the rules, to give the employees (read “CEOs”) more power than the owners.

 

[AndrewLong]

One of the wealthiest, richest people in the world is … Oprah Winfrey.

Oprah Winfrey OWNS her television program.

Someone was complaining on her show one day about having to drive a crummy old small car. Oprah replied that she (Oprah) used to drive a Chevette … so she had no sympathy.

She is the ultimate entrepreneur.

Kidding, right?

If Bill Gates and Warren Buffet woke up with Oprah’s money, they’d jump out a window.

I can’t speak for Buffet, but Bill Gates gives away more money every year than Oprah makes.

 

[consumedconvert]

Kidding, right?

If Bill Gates and Warren Buffet woke up with Oprah’s money, they’d jump out a window.

I can’t speak for Buffet, but Bill Gates gives away more money every year than Oprah makes.

True, but Oprah is just so much more likeable than Warren Buffet or Bill Gates!

 

[AndrewLong]

True, but Oprah is just so much more likeable than Warren Buffet or Bill Gates!

I do agree!

 

[anthony022071]

True, but Oprah is just so much more likeable than Warren Buffet or Bill Gates!

She’s way too phony and self-righteous and full of self-conceit. And she’s stumping for Barack Obama.