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.
I love uncle Milty. There is more regulation of Industry in our country than at any time since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. So your argument is "How is living in the most regulated society in human history working out for you?" Well for me I'm doing just fine. For that poor soul making $8.00 an hour paying 30% more for his groceries because of the heavy regulation not so well.
On the morality side. No question I'm doing just fine. Risk vs cost? How much is to much to pay? Just look at Liebeck vs. McDonald's. Perfect example of the nanny state we live in today.
I'd like to see what evidence you're leaning on regarding the first bolded portion conclusion.
Second bolded statement... American workers have been steadily producing more goods and services while getting steadily paid less to accomplish more. Shouldn't those who produce more get paid more? Moreover;
1. when those who are persistently under compensated because the top absorbs their pay increases (rules of supply & demand being applied equally), how is it their own fault?
2. When it's industry wide trend controlling all of the pricing by deliberately creating scarcity, the price of product increased 30%, this is the fault of whom? Very odd math going on in your argument.
...From the economic viewpoint, i.e., labor cost per unit of output. In that realistic sense, the typical American employee (or farmer) is the lowest paid worker in the world. True, his hourly pay is three and four times that of his Russian counterpart. But his average hourly productivity is five and six times as much. The primary reason for this high productivity is the constantly increasing amounts of equipment the typical American uses in his work.
As my Egyptian friend pointed out, it’s true the American worker is better educated and trained than his European and African counterparts. I’m convinced he also works harder and more effectively, even when he’s doing manual labor. And he accepts directions better than his counterpart in other nations. But in the final analysis, if he didn’t have easy access to machines and other labor-saving devices, he wouldn’t produce much more than the Egyptian peasant.
The result of this abundance of capital is that even at a pay rate of 40 and 50 dollars a day, the American worker still generally provides the cheapest labor in the world. For example, a worker in the capital-intensive United States who uses his machines to produce 500 "units" for $50 pay is far cheaper than an Asiatic worker with little equipment who produces only 25 "units" for $5 pay.
Most American businessmen, however, continue to use the erroneous hourly wage comparison and thus continue to demand protection against cheap foreign labor. But foreign businessmen themselves are increasingly showing by their actions that American labor is indeed a bargain.
1. when those who are persistently under compensated because the top absorbs their pay increases...
The problem in this statement is that the numbers do not add up. In most industries, although executive salaries are very high, taking all of it away from the few at the top would have an insignificant effect if distributed to everyone else. Take a look at many SEC reports and you will see what I mean.
Now there are other businesses - entertainment, trial lawyers, investment bankers - where there really are no workers to speak of, and this is where I might agree that compensation is too high. If an exec employs many I see no problem with them being highly compensated.
The problems we are having today have nothing to do with Capitalism. Capitalism works fine, when left alone.
Government is the problem. Government has created every problem we are facing at this very moment. Not private business, not corporations, not capitalism; but GOVERNMENT.
When government gets it's greedy fingers into everything, and starts regulating this and that, it interferes with free market forces, and thows everything out of whack. Government controling prices, wages, paying people to not produce something, etc, etc, providing subsidies or incentives to some, but not to others.
The free market, capitalism, works fine, when left alone.
The price of a good or service is determined by cost of production, and demand. High demand, lower production cost, and plentiful supply tends to bring prices down. High demand, high production cost, and short supply (for whatever reason) equals higher prices.
I suggest your read "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountain Head", once required reading, now forgotten, I'm afraid.
I answered your question and you came up with a spin like "unprecedented levels of deregulation".
The economy has been regulated quite a bit for quite a while, which threw it out of
balance much stronger than if it wasn't distorted by the regulations.
The problems we are having today have nothing to do with Capitalism. Capitalism works fine, when left alone.
Government is the problem. Government has created every problem we are facing at this very moment. Not private business, not corporations, not capitalism; but GOVERNMENT.
Wow, someone who actually drank the Milton Friedman/neocon KoolAid.
After Wall Street took the American taxpayer of over 700 billion dollars and after the military industrial complex started a war of aggression against Iraq that has raked in trillions (and opened access to lucrative oil reserves) I didnt think there were too many left.
Ronnie Raygun used to spout such nonsense, because he, like all rightwingers who followed in his footsteps knew that deregulation allowed the thieves to cart away trillions before Congress would eventually investigate, and by then it was too late. The money would be in the bank.
Amazing how propaganda can still work in light of all the evidence that shows governments role should not allow the wolves to guard the U.S. Treasury.
I suggest you read "Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein for a thorough examination of Milton Friedman and the Univ. of Chicago ideology.
The problem in this statement is that the numbers do not add up. In most industries, although executive salaries are very high, taking all of it away from the few at the top would have an insignificant effect if distributed to everyone else. Take a look at many SEC reports and you will see what I mean.
Now there are other businesses - entertainment, trial lawyers, investment bankers - where there really are no workers to speak of, and this is where I might agree that compensation is too high. If an exec employs many I see no problem with them being highly compensated.
Well, I think that data isn't apparent to anyone. SEC reports what? If someone is paid 23 million extra and the remaining downsized staff shouldering that largesse isn't given a wage increase for decades, there are huge consequences. It's bad enough those shouldering it don't get the same pension, but how are they supposed to fund their own privatized retirements when the top dog ate it? This is a lose lose situation, and a scam being sold that only gives privitization a bad name.
What is apparent to all overseas is that executive compensation is way over the top in USA (as per peers). The excess should be shareholder returns, so in fairness, why aren't shareholders the primary aggrieved party in this scenario? The reality is the smoke and mirrors management style isn't yielding actual returns for them, but artificial returns based on flim flammery PT Barnum BS.
Consider the retirement package in perpetuity Carly Fiorina managed to carve out for herself despite having cost Hewlett Packard dearly with incompetence. She isn't alone, there's a long list of characters walking in those shoes getting rewarded for failure, but they're held up as heroes. Why is our culture celebrating theft?
What's more, how can adults be expected to give any lessons about work ethics to youth when the examples of leadership in America all got there by hook or crook? Work ethics are going extinct because mgmt made it so. Everyone wanting to be a chief but not an indian came from this cultural disrespect & contempt for working classes.
The article below offers all theories as to why, and well worth the read if you've got the time.
EXPLAINING THE INTERNATIONAL CEO PAY GAP: BOARD CAPTURE OR MARKET DRIVEN? | North America > United States from AllBusiness.com (http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/3604520-1.html - broken link)
And this paper evidences the conclusion bolded.
Peer Comparisons of CEO Pay: Fair Pay or Power Play? (http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/3/0/6/3/0/p306303_index.html?phpsessid=23c3124453373f48d3526 38d58bc128d - broken link)
Quote:
...this paper
examines the peer comparisons of CEO compensation among S&P 1500 firms from 1992 to
2006. The results indicated that large corporations do link CEO pay to CEO pay at peer firms. To
further understand the organizational conditions under which the compensation comparisons
become more active, the analysis tested hypotheses from two distinct perspectives. First, the data
did not support the argument that compensation comparison is more active when the CEO is
underpaid relative to the peer CEOs. This led to the examination of the second perspective,
which posits that a CEO’s ability to address pay inequity depends on her power relative to the
board and the shareholders. Consistent with this perspective, compensation comparisons are
more active in firms in which the CEO has more power over the board and outside ownership is
less concentrated.
If you'll see these results in grander context of American business, only those who can wield power over others to deny others their worth get rewarded. There is nothing but incentive to price fix since all rewards revolve around that warped economy that has no basis in reality. This includes that cast of characters you despise, and I tend to agree. What on earth does it mean when a country doctor lives in poverty and a baseball player is paid 100 million?
What do you disagree with in my post exactly?
Was the real estate bubble caused by pure capitalism or unreasonable regulations?
The deregulation that was allowed to occur by Pres. Clinton towards the end of his second term was put into hyperdrive while the idiot frat boy from Texas was President for 8 years.
You must not be familiar with the former corporation known as Enron.
Enron is a perfect example of where deregulation will lead.
The problem in this statement is that the numbers do not add up. In most industries, although executive salaries are very high, taking all of it away from the few at the top would have an insignificant effect if distributed to everyone else. Take a look at many SEC reports and you will see what I mean.
Now there are other businesses - entertainment, trial lawyers, investment bankers - where there really are no workers to speak of, and this is where I might agree that compensation is too high. If an exec employs many I see no problem with them being highly compensated.
Maybe you could link to a SEC report that shows your position. Remember it's not just after tax compensation that causes the problem.
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.
