Should salaries be capped?

  • Thread starter Thread starter consumedconvert
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
consumedconvert said:
Sometimes I think we make a mistake in thinking that at the topmost levels hardball politics is primarily about competing ideologies; esp. since most politicians will change ideologies. Could it be that most top-level politics, communist, capitalist, republican, democrat, socialist, other, is about self-preservation?
Click to expand...
Putting aside for a moment the fact that capitalism isn’t politics (it’s an apolitical economic system) I woulod say that for politicians it’s all about power and self-aggrandizement. It’s been a long time since we had a politician like Washington who could be offered absolute power and turn it down.
 
LCMS_No_More said:
How quaint and folksy…albeit inaccurate.
Click to expand...
Quack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack Quack
 
estesbob said:
Quack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack Quack
Click to expand...
Mmm! Peking duck!
 
estesbob said:
Quack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack QuackQuack Quack
Click to expand...
AFLAC
 
By all means, salaries should not be capped. But in my retail example, when those same executives who have no maximum are turning around and limiting the guys at the bottom, not realizing that their income derives from the sales these guys do, then that is just wrong. This creates an impossiblity for anyone to ever advance within a company and therefore the elite few control things. Talk about injustice. But I gues that is the way America is becoming. Money contorls everything.
 
goofyjim said:
By all means, salaries should not be capped. But in my retail example, when those same executives who have no maximum are turning around and limiting the guys at the bottom, not realizing that their income derives from the sales these guys do, then that is just wrong.
Click to expand...
If they don’t realize where their income derives from, then the company will go broke, won’t it?
goofyjim said:
This creates an impossiblity for anyone to ever advance within a company and therefore the elite few control things. Talk about injustice. But I gues that is the way America is becoming.
Click to expand...
**All **companies are like that? No corporate officers know where the money comes from?
goofyjim said:
Money contorls everything.
Click to expand...
You’ve contradicted yourself, Jim. If corporate officers are firing or reducing the salaries of the people who make the money, then clearly something other than money controls.
 
vern_humphrey said:
If they don’t realize where their income derives from, then the company will go broke, won’t it?

**All **companies are like that? No corporate officers know where the money comes from?

You’ve contradicted yourself, Jim. If corporate officers are firing or reducing the salaries of the people who make the money, then clearly something other than money controls.
Click to expand...
I sincerely hope that the top guys at Circuit City have shot themselves in the foot by laying off the higher paid salespeople. It was the stupidest cost cutting measure because in the end it gives the signal to the public that the company is hurting.

Yet you don’t get my point. Their salaries go up while the wage earner at the bottom is continually kept at the bottom, literally. Never anyway to keep his income going up with loyalty to the company and even good performance. Now how is this not the control of the moneygrabbers at the top? While we can’t force it by law, it’s about time they keep these people on and reward them for good perfomance instead of laying off when they reach a certain hourly wage.
 
goofyjim said:
I sincerely hope that the top guys at Circuit City have shot themselves in the foot by laying off the higher paid salespeople. It was the stupidest cost cutting measure because in the end it gives the signal to the public that the company is hurting.
Click to expand...
If you’re right, the company will indeed be hurting.
goofyjim said:
Yet you don’t get my point. Their salaries go up while the wage earner at the bottom is continually kept at the bottom, literally.
Click to expand...
No, Jim, I’m afraid you don’t get the point. If your analysis is correct, the company will go broke, and we won’t have to worry about their practices anymore.

The market will correct the problem.
goofyjim said:
Never anyway to keep his income going up with loyalty to the company and even good performance. Now how is this not the control of the moneygrabbers at the top?
Click to expand...
Once again, you are asking me to believe two entirely different things – one is that their practice is economically foolish, and the company will suffer. The other is that their practice is some kind of a devilish plot, and they will make more money.

Which is it?
goofyjim said:
While we can’t force it by law, it’s about time they keep these people on and reward them for good perfomance instead of laying off when they reach a certain hourly wage.
Click to expand...
Which means, what?
 
vern_humphrey said:
Which means, what?
Click to expand...
Perhaps Jim is suggesting that it is unjust for a company to not reward its most faithful and hardest working employees, and that it is unjust for a company to lay off someone after they reach a certain hourly wage.

The market is good for many things; it cannot ensure or greatly encourage economic justice. Conscience must play a factor. But if the entity is either so driven by numbers or so large and impersonal that it chooses not to care about treating its employees fairly, and it has no conscience outside of the profit motive (particularly the personal profit motive of the guys at the top)?

That’s why we have things like the minimum wage, sir.
 
krimshas said:
Perhaps Jim is suggesting that it is unjust for a company to not reward its most faithful and hardest working employees, and that it is unjust for a company to lay off someone after they reach a certain hourly wage.
Click to expand...
So who will assume responsibility for the management of the company?

Like it or not, there are business slow-downs. Businesses do have to lay people off from time to time. Those that fail to do that go broke, and everyone gets laid off.
krimshas said:
The market is good for many things; it cannot ensure or greatly encourage economic justice. Conscience must play a factor. But if the entity is either so driven by numbers or so large and impersonal that it chooses not to care about treating its employees fairly, and it has no conscience outside of the profit motive (particularly the personal profit motive of the guys at the top)?
Click to expand...
The market is good for making money. Companies that do not make money cannot pay their employees.
krimshas said:
That’s why we have things like the minimum wage, sir.
Click to expand...
Which hurts the very people it is supposed to help:
  1. It destroys jobs – when was the last time you pulled into a gas station and someone came out and said, “Fill 'er up?” That job is gone forever.
  2. It forces other jobs overseas – these hills are full of small shirt factories that are closed. The work went overseas.
  3. It forces still other jobs into the labor Black Market – where undocumented aliens work for less.
  4. It has brought about a significant racial disparity in entry-level jobs. Black teenagers (who used to have the same employment rate as white teenagers) have only one-third the employment rate of their white counterparts.
Some justice!!
 
vern_humphrey said:
So who will assume responsibility for the management of the company?

Like it or not, there are business slow-downs. Businesses do have to lay people off from time to time. Those that fail to do that go broke, and everyone gets laid off.

The market is good for making money. Companies that do not make money cannot pay their employees.

Which hurts the very people it is supposed to help:
  1. It destroys jobs – when was the last time you pulled into a gas station and someone came out and said, “Fill 'er up?” That job is gone forever.
  2. It forces other jobs overseas – these hills are full of small shirt factories that are closed. The work went overseas.
  3. It forces still other jobs into the labor Black Market – where undocumented aliens work for less.
  4. It has brought about a significant racial disparity in entry-level jobs. Black teenagers (who used to have the same employment rate as white teenagers) have only one-third the employment rate of their white counterparts.
Some justice!!
Click to expand...
Well let’s see. A company can choose to save money by having the million dollar person take a 10% pay cut saving 100,000 and still leaving him comfortable, or laying off 5 people who earn 20,000. Which do you believe is the moral option?
 
goofyjim said:
Well let’s see. A company can choose to save money by having the million dollar person take a 10% pay cut saving 100,000 and still leaving him comfortable, or laying off 5 people who earn 20,000. Which do you believe is the moral option?
Click to expand...
Which is more likely to happen?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top