Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
Famous last words, capitalist scum!
The myth of hard work and meritocracy.
- Thread starter Mark1031
- Start date
Famous last words, capitalist scum!
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
Pretty much. However, more of the work consists of talking to people than actual "work".
Yeah, it takes a lot of talking to get wage serfs to do any work.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
Depends, doesn't take me a lot of talking. I hire mostly internationals(which is pretty convienant tax wise too) and as long as you offer more than the average pay in their country, they work pretty well.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
I agree. Makes perfect sense to me.
But is that the top 1%, or the bottom 1%? Both are interesting demographics. But one is more comfortable.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Can we run him against Ron Paul?
The only use for such a candidate might be someone who supports a fiscal free market and keeping the government out of our social lives being the opposing candidate, and WINNING.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
Can we run him against Ron Paul?
The only use for such a candidate might be someone who supports a fiscal free market and keeping the government out of our social lives being the opposing candidate, and WINNING.
Are you aware that the hyper-individualism that economic libertarians tout is directly derived from anti-Christian polemicists from the 19th and 18th centuries?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I know a song about this.
Link to video.
It's, err, it's not what you'd call ceilidh music.
Link to video.
It's, err, it's not what you'd call ceilidh music.
How on earth would you go about quantifying that?
Abortion is a social issue.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Traitorfish said:
Isn't that the whole idea behind pay awards? I mean, I know it's not perfect but don't companies generally reward their workers based on how hard it is to find people with those particular skills and how much profit (i.e. benefit) they will bring to the company?
It's a pretty ad hoc kind of affair, I know, but what would be an alternative?
I think any alternative might be better.
Disgustipated
Deity
And what's wrong with unionizing? It's a private sector solution to a private sector problem. I'm completely against the U.S. government redistributing money. If the workers see how much CEO's are making, then it should be obvious their company has spare money on hand, so they should unionize to grab some of that money. I support private unions (public sector unions are another matter which I won't get into in this thread).
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
1. Unionization is banned by many large companies.
2. Unionization without government support often lead to trouble, especially when government goes where the money is.
You're still ignoring your own point: You said CEOs deserve the pay they get because of their smarts.
After reading my responses, do you still hold to that position?
Disgustipated
Deity
There are more factors at work here. They are also getting pay based on other factors. One being the fact that they can get away with it.
If people can get away with taking more money they will. There was a police chief in California who made over $500,00 a year (his pension is still getting him over $100k a year). It's kind of ridiculous a police chief makes more than the president.
These things will continue until people stand up against it. In the latter instance the voters have to stand up against the politicians, and in the former either the shareholders need to stand up, or the workers need some kind of revolt.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
Sure. Someone offered to pay $X to someone else in exchange for some kind of work.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Didn't take you for a labour value theorist, Cutlass. 
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
How can you determine whether or not somebody was paid "for their work" if you're not working in an LTV framework? If work is worth whatever people will give you for it, then it follows that whatever you can get your hands on is the appropriate reward for your work.
That kind of depends how you get your hands on it. With these biggest CEO paychecks, it's not like the owners of the company have a say in what the CEO gets. The CEO appoints the board, the board decides what the CEO earns. When you are picking the people who decide what you will earn, and you are compensating the people who decide what you earn based on what you earn, then the best description of what is actually going on is not "pay", but rather "embezzlement".
Similar threads
