Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by civvver, Feb 5, 2014.
How do you measure wealth?
Not at all. I'm just a communist for the laughs, you know.
Still makes no sense. See: CEO of giant mining company in Africa vs CEO of small consulting firm in Switzerland.
The answer, of course, is to let the market decide instead of coming up with arbitrary and illogical values.
Um. I'm not sure I understand.
I understand that you're seriously communist (or is it Marxist?), which would mean that your comment is sarcasm.
So, you do think a normative income policy is either possible or desirable. Right?
(I've a feeling I'm asking the wrong questions, here.)
There's nothing logical or specific about "the market," it's just laziness. Besides, people decide how the market works, it's just an agglomeration of human decisions and interactions, not some magical and incontrovertible force.
I don't see how you can think that I hold any opinion other than that it is both possible and desirable, given that I have explicitly stated such.
My best understanding (such as it is) is that a normative incomes policy is unworkable.
And most people don't even seem to want one.
While I'm waiting on Cheezy to define a good measure of wealth you can design for me a market that actually achieves non arbitrary, logical values.
Well I'd say the CEO of a small consulting firm should probably get paid much more than the CEO of a giant mining company, big companies pretty much run themselves.
She hasn't proven an ability to run the company into the ground yet. Let her prove she is just as good as a man at that before you pay her like a man.
It's very logical. It's the people who actually own the business deciding how much to pay, based market conditions they analyse (ie, how other business owners are paying their employees, the past performance and qualifications of the employee, etc).
See answer above. It's entirely logical and non-arbitrary.
A lot of reasosns why that's not true. The small comapany can't afford to pay as much; the CEO of the giant mining company has far more responsibility, including criminal respnsibility; and he is in charge of far more money and people. It's only logical he gets paid more, which is why business owners do pay him more (they would pay less if they could).
There are not qualified candidates willing to take less?
If only women had equal opportunities as men to exploit millions of poor people, only then will society truly blossom.
Not less enough in order to be worth it in their opinion.
They will choose the qualification and cost mix they judge best, which is of course not to say it is always actually best, but it sure beats bureaucrats or random internet people trying to guess how much they're worth based on nothing but gut feeling.
Same can be said for the pay of unionized workers.
I'm not sure what exempts a CEO of a small company from criminal responsibilities that doesn't apply to a large company?
They could hire me for less, I'd do a better job than the majority of CEOs of large companies. (Well they couldn't actually hire me, I've got better things to do, but they haven't tried.)
Or they could just pay any qualified person less, I don't think there's any evidence that CEO compensation helps companies perform better.
Similar to "in charge of more money/people" - I don't know what evidence-based business-performance reason there is to pay people proportional to the amount of money/people they're "in charge of".
Luiz is apparently advocating for President Obama to get a huge raise.
So to be clear, what you're saying is that business owners should set their own pay and that anyone else influencing that is illogical and arbitrary.
Equality in exploitation!!!
Yeah, publicly held companies are actually pretty bad for that.
Company I work for has several tens of thousands of employees and billions in revenue and is solely owned by the CEO, so he can pay himself whatever he wants.
OK, there are a lot of points made, all easy:
1- Larger companies have larger criminal liabilities.
2-No you wouldn't
3-They're not stupid. They pay what they feel like they need to pay to get the person they want for the job.
4-Who said anything about proportional? Of course people in charge of more money and people will generally be paid more, but it's not proportional.
If all that being POTUS paid was the actual salary, then yeah, Obama would be the most underpaid person in the planet. But we all know it isn't. Any retired POTUS can make a fortune on lectures and memoirs, so there's an implicit promise of enormous future pay. And there's the whole prestige thing, which for some people is worth more than money.
Uh... yeah. Business owners can set the pay they want for their employees. The penalty for overpaying is wasting their own money; the penalty for underpaying is losing good employees. It's a very effective system.
Separate names with a comma.