Executives are suddenly more productive

[RGacky3]

Thats what his libertarian says, that CEOs deserve every penny they got, because clearly, CEOS will make the best judgement of what to pay ..... themselves, and will ONLY pay themself based on performance.

Thom makes a great point that CEOs are not really that rare.

Ebcipt4rIyU

BTW, this is what I've been talking about, the right wing mindset, reverence for power, total admiration for the rich and powerful and disdain for the poor.

[Bud Struggle]

That's just idiotic.

[Havet]

key word here: "suddenly"

[RGacky3]

That's just idiotic.


Which part?



key word here: "suddenly"


Aparently they got insanely more productive after Reagan.

[Bud Struggle]

Which part?


The guy from RU is a commedian. The Randian--is well, he's a Randian.

[robbo203]

Thats what his libertarian says, that CEOs deserve every penny they got, because clearly, CEOS will make the best judgement of what to pay ..... themselves, and will ONLY pay themself based on performance.

Thom makes a great point that CEOs are not really that rare.

Ebcipt4rIyU

BTW, this is what I've been talking about, the right wing mindset, reverence for power, total admiration for the rich and powerful and disdain for the poor.


Its fascinating isnt it - how exactly do CEOs and their fawning groupies actually justify the stupendous sums of money they recieve? And stupendous they are. According to the American trade union AFL/CIO website, median compensation for CEO's in all industries in early 2010 was $3.9 million; $10.6 million for companies listed in Standard and Poor's 500, and a staggering $19.8 million for the companies listed in the Dow-Jones Industrial Average (http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/pay/index.cfm). At this sort of level we are talking about these people sharing in the proceeds of exploitation of the workforce.

Apart from ex catherdra type statements like CEOs are "worth every penny they earn" becuase they make decisions upon which the fate of a corporation , and the working lives of its thousands of employees may depend (a good reason for NOT leaving these decisions to CEOs) , where is the hard evidence that correlates CEO input with CEO income? There is none. Its their position of power withionh the corporate strucuture that enables them to rake in such high incomes - we are not talking about a level playing filed here. This is all the more remarkable because defenders of system will slate Marx's labour theory of Value as having been "discredited" for lack of empirical evidence. The so called indispensability of CEOs is belied by the fact that the very information upon which they make decisions typically flows from the bottom upwards. CEOs would be like a peice a useless flotsam adrift at sea without the desivie input of their workforce.

Interestingly, according to one retired CEO of DuPont, Edgar S. Woolard, Jr notion that CEOs deserve ever higher salaries because they "create wealth," is a "joke":
The compensation committee [of the board of directors] talks to an outside consultant who has surveys you could drive a truck through and pay anything you want to pay, to be perfectly honest. The outside consultant talks to the human resources vice president, who talks to the CEO. The CEO says what he'd like to receive. It gets to the human resources person who tells the outside consultant. And it pretty well works out that the CEO gets what he's implied he thinks he deserves, so he will be respected by his peers( Morgenson, G. ,2005, October 23, "How to slow runaway executive pay", New York Times, Section 3, p. 1)

Makes you think dunnit?

[RGacky3]

Hey, lets say you were allowed to set your own pay, and everyone elses, without any accountability? how fair do you think you would be?

[Dean]

"Von Mises says the money enters the market at the point of the CEO."

What a fucking baby. Just because some brain-dead philosopher can't account for economic leverage doesn't make his idealist nonsense worthy on its own right.

[Havet]

Aparently they got insanely more productive after Reagan.

The problem is, "they" (the "economists" making that assertion) are gauging that by the increased pay of CEO's. But increased salary doesn't necessarily mean more production.

A great book on this subject that I recommend is this one (http://www.amazon.com/Roaring-Nineties-History-Worlds-Prosperous/dp/0393058522), writen by an economic advisor of Clinton.

[RGacky3]

The guy from RU is a commedian. The Randian--is well, he's a Randian.

Thomm Hartman is a comedian? Since when??

But what part of the argument was idiotic???

As far as the Randian, yeah, but he's making a defense of the system you support.

[Bud Struggle]

Thomm Hartman is a comedian? Since when?? For even debating this guy.


But what part of the argument was idiotic???

As far as the Randian, yeah, but he's making a defense of the system you support. There is no defence of the system needed. These guys make what they make. If they negotiate a pay then they should get it. If the stock holders what to pay him (and they are almost all hims) then that's their business. Same with union negotiations--if a company and a union decide to pay workers $40 and hour--that's the business of the company.

What I make in my company is entirely MY business. I don't need to defend it to anyone.

[RGacky3]

For even debating this guy.


Do you have a better defense of the current comensation system? (i.e. capitalism)


There is no defence of the system needed. These guys make what they make. If they negotiate a pay then they should get it. If the stock holders what to pay him (and they are almost all hims) then that's their business.

First of all a lot of these companies were bailed out with public, at that point you DO need a defence.

But sure under capitalism you don't need to defend it, but from a moral standpoint, i.e. what is earned, its indefensible, there is no argument that the compensation is earned.

What your arguing is like responding to a charge that a king is living it up while the subjects starve by saying "Well its his kingdom he can do what he wants," which is techincally true, but not an argument if you want to defend monarchism as a justifiable system.

It needs to be defended if you want to claim that Capitalism rewards people in any sort of justifiable way.

[psgchisolm]

If they cut their pay down, I wonder how many of them would've needed a bailout...

[Bud Struggle]

First of all a lot of these companies were bailed out with public, at that point you DO need a defence. I agree there if public funds are introduced--there is should be public scrutiny.


But sure under capitalism you don't need to defend it, but from a moral standpoint, i.e. what is earned, its indefensible, there is no argument that the compensation is earned. Communism isn't about idealism--it's material, it's about power not what you think is moral.


What your arguing is like responding to a charge that a king is living it up while the subjects starve by saying "Well its his kingdom he can do what he wants," which is techincally true, but not an argument if you want to defend monarchism as a justifiable system.

It needs to be defended if you want to claim that Capitalism rewards people in any sort of justifiable way. Is the executive compensation system flawed--probably, but such things are self corrective after a while. But there is no real corrilation between what a janator makes and what a CEO makes. They have different duties and different responsibilities. The janitor makes no income for the corporation. He takes no responsibility for the success of the company. The CEO does. What the CEO gets paid is ENTIRELY in the hands of the people that pay him, i.e. the stockholders. Now if they don't take more responsibility for how they spend THEIR money, that's nobody's business but theirs.

[danyboy27]

Another romantic ubermelsh fantasy again.

Unless the physiology and mental capacity of CEO evolved in a matter of decades, what this randian is saying dosnt make sense at all.

Even the evolution in computer couldnt justify such productivity increase of a man.

Look at the fucking number, from being paid 30 time the avearge worker to being paid over 500 times.

the only productivity that increase by technological mean are the productivity of the worker, and if that the case, the worker then do deserve his fair share.


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/193/524810765_1f08b12739.jpg?v=0

[RGacky3]

Communism isn't about idealism--it's material, it's about power not what you think is moral.


Ultimately every system boils down to a type of morality, and your right it is about power, who should have it, and that has to justified.


Is the executive compensation system flawed--probably, but such things are self corrective after a while.

Really? How an when? Since the begining of Capitalism its only been getting worse.



They have different duties and different responsibilities. The janitor makes no income for the corporation. He takes no responsibility for the success of the company. The CEO does. What the CEO gets paid is ENTIRELY in the hands of the people that pay him, i.e. the stockholders. Now if they don't take more responsibility for how they spend THEIR money, that's nobody's business but theirs.

The CEO ultimately is not financially responsible either. Nor does he really make any income for hte company, the workers do.

YOu know who pays the CEO? THe CEO, and the board of directors.

Stockholders don't really have that choice, the way corporations work is the board selects the ceo who selects the board.

As far as the stockholders, stocks are treated INVESTMENTS!!!! not actual conrolling shares, and being an activist stockholder in a corporation is next to impossible.

So in practice, its a dictatorship, the CEO chooses the CEOs pay.

[robbo203]

For even debating this guy.

There is no defence of the system needed. These guys make what they make. If they negotiate a pay then they should get it. If the stock holders what to pay him (and they are almost all hims) then that's their business. Same with union negotiations--if a company and a union decide to pay workers $40 and hour--that's the business of the company.

What I make in my company is entirely MY business. I don't need to defend it to anyone.


Ahem, and is it, I wonderm the business of the workers you employ that you can ratchet up your income in the way that CEOs have done by increasing the rate at which you exploit them? Sorry but the income of CEOs is definitely not simply the business of CEOs. The figures I quoted earlier -a median compensation sum for CEOs of $19.8 million for the companies listed in the Dow-Jones Industrial Average means these people are certainly sharing in the fruits of exploitation along with the shareholders - or to be more precise the Board of Directors - who give the nod to such things with the judicious help of some grey suited yes men. Not to put it too finely CEOs are part of the parasite class who live off the sweat of our brows. So of course what they are paid matters

The logic of your extreme atomism is that it is none of my business of if, say, some poor old guy is being mugged by a thug around the corner. Little wonder you come out with such a crass comment as "no defence of the system is needed" (which you promptly contradict by then saying If CEO negotiate a pay then they should get it) Presumably by "no defence of the system is needed" you mean no defence of the system can be provided. It is morally bankrupt

[danyboy27]

For even debating this guy.

There is no defence of the system needed. These guys make what they make. If they negotiate a pay then they should get it. If the stock holders what to pay him (and they are almost all hims) then that's their business. Same with union negotiations--if a company and a union decide to pay workers $40 and hour--that's the business of the company.

What I make in my company is entirely MY business. I don't need to defend it to anyone.

Well at least that a verry honest point of view.

BUt there is one slight problem: The board of dirrector is not accountable and neither are you for the problem you could eventually create.

I mean, come on, even the kings back then where somewhat accountable for their action, they knew that if they didnt care for their peoples, folks with torch and pitchfork would come and burn down their castle and murder all their relatives.

Power should go in pair with accountability and responsability for the people you have under your wing.

Its not a moral question, but a matter of stability.

What happening to the us is the dirrect result of having a fews thousand of unaccountable peoples doing ill to the people under their wing.

Without having laws to ensure their protection, a lot of those unaccountable people would serve jail time today for failing their subjects.

[Bud Struggle]

Ahem, and is it, I wonderm the business of the workers you employ that you can ratchet up your income in the way that CEOs have done by increasing the rate at which you exploit them? Sorry but the income of CEOs is definitely not simply the business of CEOs. The figures I quoted earlier -a median compensation sum for CEOs of $19.8 million for the companies listed in the Dow-Jones Industrial Average means these people are certainly sharing in the fruits of exploitation along with the shareholders - or to be more precise the Board of Directors - who give the nod to such things with the judicious help of some grey suited yes men. Not to put it too finely CEOs are part of the parasite class who live off the sweat of our brows. So of course what they are paid matters. If you feel that way then that's the way you feel. Others can feel differently.


The logic of your extreme atomism is that it is none of my business of if, say, some poor old guy is being mugged by a thug around the corner. Little wonder you come out with such a crass comment as "no defence of the system is needed" (which you promptly contradict by then saying If CEO negotiate a pay then they should get it) Presumably by "no defence of the system is needed" you mean no defence of the system can be provided. It is morally bankrupt If a guy is being mugged a law is being broken--it's a crime and the guily person should be stopped and arrested. No laws are being broken when a CEO negotiates his pay.

If a union negotiates a pay raise then the workers SHOULD get the raise. I don't see the problem.

No defense of the system is NEEDED because no laws are being broken and it's a private contract between the employers (the stockholders as represented by the BoD) and the employee--the CEO. As for as it being morally bankrupt--that is your opinion and that's fine but Communism isn't structured on morality--it's all about power.

[Bud Struggle]

Well at least that a verry honest point of view.

BUt there is one slight problem: The board of dirrector is not accountable and neither are you for the problem you could eventually create.

I mean, come on, even the kings back then where somewhat accountable for their action, they knew that if they didnt care for their peoples, folks with torch and pitchfork would come and burn down their castle and murder all their relatives.

Power should go in pair with accountability and responsability for the people you have under your wing.

Its not a moral question, but a matter of stability.

What happening to the us is the dirrect result of having a fews thousand of unaccountable peoples doing ill to the people under their wing.

Without having laws to ensure their protection, a lot of those unaccountable people would serve jail time today for failing their subjects.

All true. But until the stockholders of these companies demand the BoD be held responsible then there is nothing anyone can do. I can hire a manager of my business and either control everything he does or walk away and let him do everything. It's my company and I could do what I want. Same with these companies--if the owners want to leave everything up to the BoD--it's their company and that's entirely their business.

And YEA there should be laws. And if the CEO or the guy that sweeps the floor bread the law they should be held accountable. I have no problem with that.

[danyboy27]

All true. But until the stockholders of these companies demand the BoD be held responsible then there is nothing anyone can do. I can hire a manager of my business and either control everything he does or walk away and let him do everything. It's my company and I could do what I want. Same with these companies--if the owners want to leave everything up to the BoD--it's their company and that's entirely their business.

And YEA there should be laws. And if the CEO or the guy that sweeps the floor bread the law they should be held accountable. I have no problem with that.

Beccause there is no incentives for the shareholder to do such thing.

the shareholder are not being held accountable either for electing a shitty board of dirrector.

[Bud Struggle]

Beccause there is no incentives for the shareholder to do such thing.

the shareholder are not being held accountable either for electing a shitty board of dirrector.

Agreed but it is their money and their business. The public has no say in the matter. The company is--private property.

[danyboy27]

Agreed but it is their money and their business. The public has no say in the matter. The company is--private property.

and there we go, the systemic risk resurface.

Without accountability that what you get, an instable system.

[Skooma Addict]

"Von Mises says the money enters the market at the point of the CEO."

What a fucking baby. Just because some brain-dead philosopher can't account for economic leverage doesn't make his idealist nonsense worthy on its own right.

Especially since Mises does not say this.

[Dean]

Especially since Mises does not say this.

Skooma's famous contradictions-sans-argument. I'm not particularly worried about the nuances of a hack philosopher - what I am worried about is the childish obfuscation which the randroid attributes to Mises above. Barring any specific criticism of that absurd comment of his, I'm not sure what the value of your response was.

How telling that you are obsessed with defending your one idol to the point of excluding discussion of the actual issues at hand.

[RGacky3]

Agreed but it is their money and their business. The public has no say in the matter. The company is--private property.

Exactly, thats what private property turns too, large profit making tyrannnies, which is why its an unjustifiable system.


No defense of the system is NEEDED because no laws are being broken and it's a private contract between the employers (the stockholders as represented by the BoD) and the employee--the CEO. As for as it being morally bankrupt--that is your opinion and that's fine but Communism isn't structured on morality--it's all about power.

IF you want to justify capitalism then you do need ot justify its compensation system.

As far as communism being structured on morality, yes it is, and it always has been, the underlying motive of communism is a moral one.

[Bud Struggle]

As far as communism being structured on morality, yes it is, and it always has been, the underlying motive of communism is a moral one.

(I could be wrong, of course) but the way I understand it Communism is based entirely on the logicality of things evening out.

Eventually people who have nothing will see that they have more power than those that have everything and they will by force (Revolution) use their power to get more.

Morality implies some sort of external ideal of fairness which I don't think is in Communism. The fairness comes from people with less having greater strength because of their numbers.

[RGacky3]

but the way I understand it Communism is based entirely on the logicality of things evening out.

Eventually people who have nothing will see that they have more power than those that have everything and they will by force (Revolution) use their power to get more.


But the idea that we want this to happen, i.e. the eavening of things out, is out of morality. How its gets done has to do with their power of numbers.

But all of this is based on a moral premis, that whats best for everyone is best.

[Dean]

(I could be wrong, of course) but the way I understand it Communism is based entirely on the logicality of things evening out.

Eventually people who have nothing will see that they have more power than those that have everything and they will by force (Revolution) use their power to get more.

Perhaps idealist communism is like this. But none of the scientific strains of the last 200 yrs fit this model.


Morality implies some sort of external ideal of fairness which I don't think is in Communism. The fairness comes from people with less having greater strength because of their numbers.
Absolutely not. You still haven't been paying attention.

The proletarian class shares its wealth. That's what makes the class different - in addition to being the class whose labor-value is not exchanged at its correct rate. When workers receive and control the value of their wealth, it is a clear idea of fairness that is in question.

[ComradeMan]

Perhaps idealist communism is like this. But none of the scientific strains of the last 200 yrs fit this model..

Scientific? Based on what empirical results?



The proletarian class shares its wealth.

Source? Examples?

---

Too much economism all the time.

[danyboy27]

(I could be wrong, of course) but the way I understand it Communism is based entirely on the logicality of things evening out.

not evening thing out, sharing the power in order to avoid eventual fuck up.
Of course the goal is a completely even distribution of it, but if we could at least avoid people to earn 30 or 500 times the income of other folks and give a shitload of power to a fews invididual, i would consider it a good job.




Eventually people who have nothing will see that they have more power than those that have everything and they will by force (Revolution) use their power to get more.
.
Well, what is the problem? what is important is the general will. To me it sound logical to take away power from 10% of the population in order to ensure peace and prosperity to 90% of the population for the coming centuries.

Its a question of responsibility. What do you do when someone in a position of power misuse his power?

IF those 10% would be responsable with the way they use their power, we wouldnt even have this discussion right now.



Morality implies some sort of external ideal of fairness which I don't think is in Communism. The fairness comes from people with less having greater strength because of their numbers.
Morality is something that could easily be sculpted and shaped at our liking.
i am not claiming that communism is more moral than lets say capitalism.
Confederate slave master have been able to clearly articulate in the past how they where more moral than the yankee for multiples reasons that actually made sense.

[danyboy27]

Source? Examples?
---

Too much economism all the time.
what a worker does with his money? he spend it on food, playstation, car, house, renovation.

he redistribute it into society.

capitalist more than often just stack it to purchase the mean of production so they can stack more to purchase the mean of production, invest it on wall street or the financial market.

a well paid worker in the current economy actually create more job than a capitalist beccause he have to fufill his need.

[Skooma Addict]

Skooma's famous contradictions-sans-argument. I'm not particularly worried about the nuances of a hack philosopher - what I am worried about is the childish obfuscation which the randroid attributes to Mises above. Barring any specific criticism of that absurd comment of his, I'm not sure what the value of your response was.

How telling that you are obsessed with defending your one idol to the point of excluding discussion of the actual issues at hand.

Mises isn't my idol, I just pointed out a misinterpretation of his beliefs. You are right though, if I wanted to make a meaningful contribution to the discussion, I would have said something like this...


"Von Mises says the money enters the market at the point of the CEO."

What a fucking baby. Just because some brain-dead philosopher can't account for economic leverage doesn't make his idealist nonsense worthy on its own right.

[synthesis]

The guy from RU is a commedian. The Randian--is well, he's a Randian.

Really? I thought the reverse. I was consistently - consistently - laughing out loud at the latter. Not just the things he said - his bookcase and sweater are also lulz.

[Amphictyonis]

We need to laugh at NAZI's and beat up Randroids/Misians :)

(Just kidding...or am I?)

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

"He get's the money from the people who pay him for electricity."

"They choose to pay him!"

Fucking dolt.

[RGacky3]

"He get's the money from the people who pay him for electricity."

"They choose to pay him!"

Fucking dolt.

Just shows how concerned they are about real liberty.

Clearly, the fact that 2 billionaire companies control all the power, the fact that I chose to pay one of them so I don't freeze to death justifies his millions on millions of bonuses, he worked very hard to .... well, whatever, its my choice to not freeze to death so he deserves it.

[Amphictyonis]

"He get's the money from the people who pay him for electricity."

"They choose to pay him!"

Fucking dolt.

I don't know about you but I voted to be ruled by a handful of billionaires. My masters treat me well. I get to work non stop producing more and more expodentially so my masters can play golf while I earn the choice to pay them for rent, interest, electricity, food, water and clothes. My master even gave me a turkey last Christmas. He's so generous.

[Revolution starts with U]

Agreed but it is their money and their business. The public has no say in the matter. The company is--private property.
That's the problem, though, isn't it? :rolleyes: