Should salaries be capped?

  • Thread starter Thread starter consumedconvert
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mapleoak said:
Let’s see, what is a corporation? A faceless amoeba?
Click to expand...
A corporation is a legal entity that exists as the result of a charter granted by the government (the agent of the people–something many forget). The purpose of a corporation is to conduct business in order to make a profit.

In and of itself, this is not a problem for me. What the people who run the corporation do and how the government acts, on behalf of the people, to regulate its activities are both essential in the morality of a corporation’s activities.
 
LCMS_No_More said:
A corporation is a legal entity that exists as the result of a charter granted by the government (the agent of the people–something many forget). The purpose of a corporation is to conduct business in order to make a profit.
Click to expand...
Where did you learn that? I started my own corporation and can assure it doesn’t make its own decisions or conduct its own business.
 
goofyjim said:
Actually it’s not. While not regulated by the government it does voluntarily help equal things out. But not many are willing to do it.
Click to expand...
See, I don’t have a problem with the boss making more than the average worker. That’s fine as the boss is usually the one taking the most risks and with a greater responsibilty. For me, it’s a question of degree.

And while I don’t think the government should set a hard cap on salaries, I think it would behoove us, as a society, if we decided that we are going to adhere to the principle of subsidiarity in the corporate world and break up those megacorps that do everything.

As a Disney fan, I would say break up Disney, too. The quality of products put out by Disney was so much better when each of its companies did its own thing (theme parks, movies, animated features, etc.). Right now, it’s one big corporation and quality has fallen off…as has the quality of Disneyland cast members…I should know…I’m there almost every Sunday after mass 😃
 
goofyjim said:
Actually it’s not. While not regulated by the government it does voluntarily help equal things out. But not many are willing to do it.
Click to expand...
Now when layoff time comes, and everyone including you are making $20,000, you resign from your position and that’s one less other person to lay off. Heaven forbid, one of those other 49 people who you hired to do nothing but earn $20,000 should be laid off.
 
LCMS_No_More said:
See, I don’t have a problem with the boss making more than the average worker. That’s fine as the boss is usually the one taking the most risks and with a greater responsibilty. For me, it’s a question of degree.

And while I don’t think the government should set a hard cap on salaries, I think it would behoove us, as a society, if we decided that we are going to adhere to the principle of subsidiarity in the corporate world and break up those megacorps that do everything.

As a Disney fan, I would say break up Disney, too. The quality of products put out by Disney was so much better when each of its companies did its own thing (theme parks, movies, animated features, etc.). Right now, it’s one big corporation and quality has fallen off…as has the quality of Disneyland cast members…I should know…I’m there almost every Sunday after mass 😃
Click to expand...
But an opposite example of that was the breakup of AT&T twenty years ago. The majority of people still make local calls as opposed to long distance and by keeping it together we would have been able to subsidize the local calls with the charges for toll calls. The average phone user was better off until the government interfered. Now in Pennsylvania we are charged a minimum fee for long distance service even if we never make a long distance call. Which leaves us with the option of dropping a long distance provider and not being able to make long distance calls, not recommended.
 
mapleoak said:
Now when layoff time comes, and everyone including you are making $20,000, you resign from your position and that’s one less other person to lay off. Heaven forbid, one of those other 49 people who you hired to do nothing but earn $20,000 should be laid off.
Click to expand...
If things get that extreme then you look at productivity and lay off the least productive employee. You like playing silly games don’t you?
 
For Goofyjim and LCMS- I’d be curious to know what y’alls feelings are on the evil empire known as Wal Mart.:
 
BamaRider said:
For Goofyjim and LCMS- I’d be curious to know what y’alls feelings are on the evil empire known as Wal Mart.:
Click to expand...
Check out the Church’s teaching on the principle of subsidiarity and you’ll have your answer. Right-wingers love to apply the principle to government but it’s a larger principle than that…it should apply to the corporate world as well.
 
But an opposite example of that was the breakup of AT&T twenty years ago. The majority of people still make local calls as opposed to long distance and by keeping it together we would have been able to subsidize the local calls with the charges for toll calls. The average phone user was better off until the government interfered. Now in Pennsylvania we are charged a minimum fee for long distance service even if we never make a long distance call. Which leaves us with the option of dropping a long distance provider and not being able to make long distance calls, not recommended.
Click to expand...
:bigyikes:
 
mapleoak said:
Where did you learn that? I started my own corporation and can assure it doesn’t make its own decisions or conduct its own business.
Click to expand...
Huh? Your corporation doesn’t makes its own decisions or conduct its own business? Is it one of those false businesses intended to protect you from any personal liability or something?
 
goofyjim said:
If things get that extreme then you look at productivity and lay off the least productive employee.
Click to expand...
What makes it extreme? All of those employees seem to be doing okay with only $20,000. Why couldn’t the CEO? How dare he make $1,000,000 and think he is entitled to it. :rolleyes:
You like playing silly games don’t you?
Click to expand...
Actually it was you said a CEO should have his salary cut from 1M to 700K before people are laid off. What’s wrong with 500K, 100K, 20K, 10K? What’s wrong with just laying himself off? Surely he doesn’t deserve his job anymore than the 20K folks do. If there are any jobless folks anywhere, he should not be making anymore than 20K himself.

You see, companies aren’t in business to employ people.
 
I don’t see it as an evil empire. Can you explain?
Click to expand...
Maybe my perception was wrong? My guess was you thought it was a evil empire because they employ thousands and thousands, pay them MW, little benefit etc, close and open stores at will, leaving ugly blights on the landscape, line their rich CEOs with obscene salaries, and make huge profits off the backs of the poor cart guys, bakery cooks, and floor sweepers. Is that not pretty much what you think Wal Mart is?
 
LCMS_No_More said:
Huh? Your corporation doesn’t makes its own decisions or conduct its own business?
Click to expand...
Of course it doesn’t. People make decisions for it. Are you now saying that a corporation isn’t just a legal entity chartered by government, but something rather like a thinking brain?
 
LCMS_No_More said:
Check out the Church’s teaching on the principle of subsidiarity and you’ll have your answer. Right-wingers love to apply the principle to government but it’s a larger principle than that…it should apply to the corporate world as well.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand. You think Bentonville should subsidize people in the USA?
 
mapleoak said:
Of course it doesn’t. People make decisions for it. Are you now saying that a corporation isn’t just a legal entity chartered by government, but something rather like a thinking brain?
Click to expand...
You’re arguing from a technicality. Yes, the officers of the corporation, acting on behalf of the corporation, make the decisions and conduct its business. However, since the corporation is, indeed, a entity chartered by the government under the law, it (by way of extension, its officers and employees) is subject to the laws under which it was chartered.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top