Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, there should not be salary caps. I am a democrat, that goes way too far. Some people do well, and there is nothing wrong with that. If they are getting bailout money, that changes things.
I voted that there should be no caps. I don't want the government telling me what I can and can not make for my labors. I want to be the best and smartest at what I do and I feel that I should have an income that reflects that.
I know people that some would define as rich and some that are not. Many of those that I personally know have overcome great obstacles to attain what they have. They were better in their field or wiser with their investments. I do not wish to deprive anyone of what they deserve.
I truly do not think that we can put a number on "rich." What is rich to some is not to others. $100,00.00 a year is no where near rich, IMHO. The billions that Oprah makes makes her rich. She has achieved that wealth fair and square and I would never be so bold as to say that she doesn't deserve it.
My parents each earn at least $100,000 separately. They did it through hard work. My mom grew up in a middle class household, payed for her own college and law school tuition, and successfully became one of the only female judges in my hometown. My dad grew up poor, his parents had a two bedroom house with one bathroom and five kids and they literally built a second bathroom outside and just drilled straight into the septic tank. I saw that house once when my dad took me to visit it, it looked like a shack and I don't know how five people had enough room to turn around in it. He worked hard all through high school to earn money, payed for his own college and law school tuition, and became a very talented defense attorney. I'm sorry, they may make a lot of money but that's because they worked hard for everything they have. I don't believe in salary caps. Why punish people for being successful? Why would I have any incentive to go to law school and why would my sister have any incentive to go to medical school if we knew that as hard as we worked we could only make a certain, mandated amount? At that rate I might as well become a teacher since I'll get three months off over the summer and I don't need a graduate degree, or maybe a receptionist because I don't even need a college degree for that. What's the point of hard work and perseverance if you can't reap the benefits because some people are offended that they can't make as much money as you? Salary caps are probably the worst idea ever.
I voted that there should be no caps. I don't want the government telling me what I can and can not make for my labors. I want to be the best and smartest at what I do and I feel that I should have an income that reflects that.
I know people that some would define as rich and some that are not. Many of those that I personally know have overcome great obstacles to attain what they have. They were better in their field or wiser with their investments. I do not wish to deprive anyone of what they deserve.
I truly do not think that we can put a number on "rich." What is rich to some is not to others. $100,00.00 a year is no where near rich, IMHO. The billions that Oprah makes makes her rich. She has achieved that wealth fair and square and I would never be so bold as to say that she doesn't deserve it.
I voted for caps, for the reasons I bolded in your statement.
My # of $5 million a year being 'rich' as a benchmark. Yes, it absolutely would apply to oprah, obama, bill gates, berkshire hathaway founder, rupert murdoch and MYSELF equally. I'm not motivated by envy in any way, and applaud their abilities to harvest in capitalist system. I'm motivated by a host of other concerns.
-Seeing money as power, and having power too concentrated in too few hands becomes a detrimental thing. Too much money can undermine our representational system, in effect, buying votes, buying legislation, that circumvents the will of the people being represented.
-Seeing power in the light of unhealthy competition: anti trust issues. Monopoly. Maximize yields by herding populations into a forced march of a single choice. Corporatism can weild innordinate amount of influence relative to the mission of soveriegn nations. Corporatism can interfere with governance, diplomatic relations, and foriegn policy. Heed the warnings of Jefferson.
-capitalism has limits to it's value as a tool because it's entirely fixated on self interest & immediate gratification, which does come at the price of communal interest that hosts it. The challenges of healthy governance have far reaching goals and long term health objectives that are not compatible with some of what capitalism is about. In other words, demanding a government be run as lean and mean as capitalism can be is unrealistic. Bush sr embracing this attitude, constituency expecting immediate gratification from 4yr political term... not healthy.
Alex the ball player is worth $250 million, a cosmetic surgeon $1million, a country doctor is worth $60k, a teacher cop or soldier is worth $40k. That sounds very OFF to me, but who decides what anything is worth? The buyers values are one thing. Seller being rewarded for flim flammery, manipulation of the masses, unethical practices, purchasing laws that keep them above the law or facilitate a ready monopoly... everyone should have a problem with that. It doesn't represent honest business. Anyone telling me that I'm somehow departed from reality, please do illustrate what respectable business practice is, or admit that guerilla warfare, charlatanism & power grabs is the real face of commerce. Lets call a spade a spade. I'm not afraid of truth.
Laws of supply and demand apply to labor as well. When gov't favors commerce at the expense of labor by facilitating low wages through immigration policy... I've got a problem with that. When laws favor commerce innordinately at the expense of labor, I've got a problem with that. When laws favor labor innordinately at the expense of a healthy company, I've got a problem with that. When laws favor CEO's over investors, I have a problem with that. Gov't should be impartial arbitor IMO, facilitating a symbiotic relationship that truly floats all boats equally. We've had waring factions paying off the judge instead. That's a sickness, not healthy for anyone except the highest bidder for as long as the civilization they built their fortune upon can bear to be leeched. Dovetails nicely back to... corporatism. Who owns my government, and in turn, owns ME?
OP-- when it comes to your question geared toward CEO compensation, I wish shareholders in a corporation had direct say over what was enough. They currently do not. There's a layer of representational weasels in a networked club that decide what is acceptable compensation for their club. Would wall street be tempered by the will of the people if everyone owned a single share of every stock and commenced to vote?
As shareholder, I more than a little do not appreciate the system as is.
As former employee, demanding I prove my worth every moment undermines my mission of guarding your company's health, but if you'll use that as a tool to wittle my worth down daily to disproportionally feather your own cap... My resignation letter read: "It's no longer cost effective for me to continue your employ."
As a business owner, my ideal economy of scale comes from making sure I don't have more employees on healthy wage than the business can support. They're aware of the books and we enjoy mutual loyalty & respect. My standards are high, the terms of employ are shareholder mentality, and we reap the rewards equally. There is no aspiration for fortune 500 dynasty status or knocking down the other guy. Only a healthy company. We're healthy together, or unhealthy together. Today: healthy. Mission accomplished.
Income is already capped for most out there. Are we talking only about the top executives, or everybody? I've read about "worth of an employee" as a counter argument against (excessive) wages in this country, should we throw that into the mix? How about minimum wage?
Income is already capped for most out there. Are we talking only about the top executives, or everybody? I've read about "worth of an employee" as a counter argument against (excessive) wages in this country, should we throw that into the mix? How about minimum wage?
IMO, there is no such thing as "excessive" wages.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
