-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2011: Of Weiners, Boehners, Santorum, and Teabags
- Thread starter PantherLotus
- Start date
- Status
I think you're misrepresenting the argument here.eznark said:
Contrasting executive pay in the US with the rest of the world is meant to show two things -
1. that you can achieve similar results while spending much less.
2. that the whole "but than the CEO will take their talents to south beach" argument is bullshit, because there is really nowhere else to go.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
FLEABttn said:
I would be TOTALLY MAD!
Dude Abides
Banned
eznark said:
Farmers are, with their subsidies to not grow crops. Especially pig farmers!
Chichikov said:
I think it's a fundamental misunderstanding of resource allocation. Just because a CEO gets paid less a company isn't going to pay employees more, especially in the current buyers labor market.
If the government comes in and says the CEO can only have a total compensation package of Y*WorkerW the company isn't going to start over-paying for talent. The resulting capital will likely be put into R&D or capital improvements. It will be put to work in the most efficient manner possible (hopefully) which certainly is not to pay individuals more than what they are willing to do the work for.
If you want to lower CEO pay just to lower CEO pay fine, I guess. But to think it's some sort of magic bullet to raise middle-management wages is goofy.
Maybe that's not an argument you guys were making though. To be honest, that exchange with Kosmo was too baffling to pay attention to.
1000% agree (I've never generated an income from farming and subsidies artificially inflated the cost of feeding those damn pigs).
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Three times Married Newt Gingrich Says Gays 'Muddle' Marriage
Ryan J. Reilly | June 27, 2011, 9:55AM
Newt Gingrich, who is married to his third wife, said this weekend that the U.S. was "drifting towards a terrible muddle" by not limiting marriage to members of the opposite sex, Reuters reported.
But he drew a distinction between Iowa, where the Supreme Court essentially legalized gay marriage, and New York, where elected representatives did.
"Iowa was a very different case from New York," Gingrich said, according to reporter O. Kay Henderson.
"I mean, Iowa was seven judges deciding that they would arbitrarily overturn the laws and the culture of the state of Iowa which is fundamentally different," Gingrich said. "I mean New York at least, whether you agree or disagree with the outcome, it is in the elected process and it is in the legislature and it is with the governor and that's the right venue."
"I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I think that's what marriage ought to be and I would like to find ways to defend that view as legitimately and effectively as possible," Gingrich said.
#######################
Ummm....yeah how can he of all people get away with saying this?
Ryan J. Reilly | June 27, 2011, 9:55AM
Newt Gingrich, who is married to his third wife, said this weekend that the U.S. was "drifting towards a terrible muddle" by not limiting marriage to members of the opposite sex, Reuters reported.
But he drew a distinction between Iowa, where the Supreme Court essentially legalized gay marriage, and New York, where elected representatives did.
"Iowa was a very different case from New York," Gingrich said, according to reporter O. Kay Henderson.
"I mean, Iowa was seven judges deciding that they would arbitrarily overturn the laws and the culture of the state of Iowa which is fundamentally different," Gingrich said. "I mean New York at least, whether you agree or disagree with the outcome, it is in the elected process and it is in the legislature and it is with the governor and that's the right venue."
"I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I think that's what marriage ought to be and I would like to find ways to defend that view as legitimately and effectively as possible," Gingrich said.
#######################
Ummm....yeah how can he of all people get away with saying this?
RustyNails
Member
While we are talking about ridiculous salaries, Congress members paid $6.1 million in bonuses to their staff as they were debating spending cuts.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
At least you've done real work, ez.
I hate to say it, mck, but reporting on newt at this point is as nearly pointless as reporting on John Bolton. These things are sad but not really useful, IMO.
mckmas8808 said:
I hate to say it, mck, but reporting on newt at this point is as nearly pointless as reporting on John Bolton. These things are sad but not really useful, IMO.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
PantherLotus said:
Damn....so it's gotten that bad for the 'ol Newt huh?
Dude Abides
Banned
He's baaaaaack!
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=28895719&postcount=168
Capitalism succeeded because of Jesus (but not for those lazy Catholics or sneaky Chinese)!
Reinforcements incoming Kosmo!
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=28895719&postcount=168
Capitalism succeeded because of Jesus (but not for those lazy Catholics or sneaky Chinese)!
Reinforcements incoming Kosmo!
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
I'd quote newt's come-at-me aardvark pose, but that's about the only thing he has left (other than an amazingly capable revolving credit line at high-priced jewlers).
I'm not sure what this post has to do with what I wrote, but I'll try to answer anyway.eznark said:
First of all, I'm not suggesting that the government set a hard cap on executive pay, so let's drop that.
2nd of all, money not paid to executives will have to go somewhere else, I didn't say it will go to the employers, what I'm saying is that it's money better spent elsewhere (by investing back in the company or raising working wages).
And finally, I think the bigger problem is the compensation model that is not tied into real long term sustainable results.
And I think that if we had a real connection between performance and pay, the problem would've solved itself, as CEOs are not nearly as important to the success of a company as some people tend to think (and just because I know I'm going to be misunderstood, I am not saying that they're not important, no at the slightest).
mckmas8808 said:Three times Married Newt Gingrich Says Gays 'Muddle' Marriage
Ryan J. Reilly | June 27, 2011, 9:55AM
Newt Gingrich, who is married to his third wife, said this weekend that the U.S. was "drifting towards a terrible muddle" by not limiting marriage to members of the opposite sex, Reuters reported.
#######################
Ummm....yeah how can he of all people get away with saying this?
What a complete fucking shitheel. His horrible candidacy failure couldn't have happened to a bigger asshole.
Chichikov said:
I don't necessarily disagree (except some of the CEO post. Founding CEO's of successful enterprises are generally invaluable and imo can never be over-paid) with any of this and my post may have been a response to an imaginary post. Like I said, I read like every tenth word of that Kosmo-GAF exchange of nonsense. I think I was responding to the implied notion that if CEO's didn't get paid so much workers would make more. There isn't really anything to indicate that's the case. Investments would hopefully still be made where they make the most sense, and paying someone more than what they are willing to work for is incredibly inefficient.
BUT HAVE YOU SEEN HIS LINES OF CREDIT AT TIFFANY'S!?!!!!!????????
empty vessel
Member
eznark said:
I agree that wages are ultimately dictated by labor bargaining power. The rise of executive pay has occurred alongside a consistent weakening in labor bargaining power over the decades, which, incidentally, corporate executives have worked politically to achieve. The corporation will always try to pay as little as possible in wages. That's inherent in capitalism. Nevertheless, the money saved from a weak labor market is being plowed into profits and executive pay, which is contributing to increased inequality and distortions in democratic governance. And the system by which executive pay is determined is largely a corrupt one. So reform is necessary regardless of its impact on wages.
My preferred solution for stagnating wages would be sharply increased taxation on the top 1% and policies that directly increase labor bargaining power and that more aggressively regulate corporate behavior.
I don't often make assumption about other people lives (in fact, I made a point about it just a page ago, and now I'm going to look like a hypocrite), but I will bet every cent I have that he has never ever read anything by Max Weber.Dude Abides said:
I can't prove it, no, but I have rarely been more sure about anything
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Chichikov said:
HOW DARE YOU!
empty vessel said:
I don't disagree that executive compensation is broken, however most proposed solutions I have see are generally worse. There is nothing keeping corporate headquarters in the United States, so a punitive taxation policy aimed at extracting wealth from corporate executives by confiscating a portion of their income would be pointless, as they would essentially have to voluntarily submit to the forfeiture(unless you would accompany it with additional punitive measures for multinational corporations of some form).
And I always thought your preferred solution was the Cultural Revolution?
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Wait wait, I want to go on the record for agreeing -- I don't want to limit executive compensation. I only want to tax it properly, in accordance and at similarly fair rates that their subordinates at which their subordinates are being taxed.
empty vessel
Member
eznark said:
One step at a time.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Well there are no cultural revolutions in utopia.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Kosmo said:
Bull.. Shit. On everything you just said. You don't understand tax brackets, and you are telling us that you have a doctorate and are currently getting an MBA?
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Obama, McConnell Prepare For Gridlock Ahead Of Key Debt Limit Meeting
Brian Beutler | June 27, 2011, 4:43PM
What ought to be a breakthrough meeting between President Obama and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is shaping up to end at the same impasse where earlier bipartisan negotiations on the debt limit fell apart. In the hours before the meeting, and in a number of different venues, McConnell renewed his insistence that Republicans will not accept any tax increases as part of a trillion-dollar deficit reduction package the GOP is demanding before agreeing to let the country pay all its bills on time.
But according to a top Democratic aide, Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) agreed at a White House meeting Monday morning that any such package must take "a balanced approach, and that revenues need to be a part of that approach, especially ending taxpayer-funded giveaways to corporations that don't need them."
Democratic aides aren't offering a complete list of the tax measures they want Republicans to consider, or how much each measure is expected to raise. Multiple accounts, however, indicate they want tax measures to raise $400 billion over the next 10 years -- 20 percent of the $2 trillion they hope to cut from the deficit overall.
But McConnell doesn't really want to touch the tax code to reduce the deficit at all. He made that as clear as ever during his Sunday appearance on This Week. That leaves user fees -- a regressive way of raising revenue -- and precious else that will get GOP support.
Democrats by contrast are looking at a mix of politically potent, and technical ways of raising revenues.
They've already targeted tax preferences for oil and gas companies, and subsidies for ethanol producers, each of which are expected to cost the Treasury tens of billions of dollars over the next decade.
They're also hoping to phase out tax deductions for high-income earners, and end a method of accounting that allows businesses to assume the goods they sell are newer than they really are, and thus increase their tax deductions for production costs.
Ending the so-called Last-In, First-Out (LIFO) accounting methods would raise almost $100 billion over 10 years.
Top Democrats didn't discuss this particular proposal on a conference call with reporters Friday. But GOP-friendly interest groups, including the National Association of Manufacturers, hate the idea.
In addition to ruling out tax increases, McConnell has also insisted that the final debt limit package make deep Medicare cuts. And unlike House Speaker John Boehner, he's not on the hook in the Senate for raising the debt limit. If he or other Republicans aren't happy with the menu of items Dems are willing to deal on, he and his caucus can (and have threatened to) leave Senate Dems to raise the debt limit on their own. But that would leave Boehner with the impossible task of squaring a Democrat-only debt limit bill with the demands of his conservative caucus.
All this as the clock ticks down toward a debt default.
####################
When situations like this come up, it clearly shows that regardless of what some people may want to believe there's a clear difference between the two parties. Holy crap is McConnell nuts.
Brian Beutler | June 27, 2011, 4:43PM
What ought to be a breakthrough meeting between President Obama and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is shaping up to end at the same impasse where earlier bipartisan negotiations on the debt limit fell apart. In the hours before the meeting, and in a number of different venues, McConnell renewed his insistence that Republicans will not accept any tax increases as part of a trillion-dollar deficit reduction package the GOP is demanding before agreeing to let the country pay all its bills on time.
But according to a top Democratic aide, Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) agreed at a White House meeting Monday morning that any such package must take "a balanced approach, and that revenues need to be a part of that approach, especially ending taxpayer-funded giveaways to corporations that don't need them."
Democratic aides aren't offering a complete list of the tax measures they want Republicans to consider, or how much each measure is expected to raise. Multiple accounts, however, indicate they want tax measures to raise $400 billion over the next 10 years -- 20 percent of the $2 trillion they hope to cut from the deficit overall.
But McConnell doesn't really want to touch the tax code to reduce the deficit at all. He made that as clear as ever during his Sunday appearance on This Week. That leaves user fees -- a regressive way of raising revenue -- and precious else that will get GOP support.
Democrats by contrast are looking at a mix of politically potent, and technical ways of raising revenues.
They've already targeted tax preferences for oil and gas companies, and subsidies for ethanol producers, each of which are expected to cost the Treasury tens of billions of dollars over the next decade.
They're also hoping to phase out tax deductions for high-income earners, and end a method of accounting that allows businesses to assume the goods they sell are newer than they really are, and thus increase their tax deductions for production costs.
Ending the so-called Last-In, First-Out (LIFO) accounting methods would raise almost $100 billion over 10 years.
Top Democrats didn't discuss this particular proposal on a conference call with reporters Friday. But GOP-friendly interest groups, including the National Association of Manufacturers, hate the idea.
In addition to ruling out tax increases, McConnell has also insisted that the final debt limit package make deep Medicare cuts. And unlike House Speaker John Boehner, he's not on the hook in the Senate for raising the debt limit. If he or other Republicans aren't happy with the menu of items Dems are willing to deal on, he and his caucus can (and have threatened to) leave Senate Dems to raise the debt limit on their own. But that would leave Boehner with the impossible task of squaring a Democrat-only debt limit bill with the demands of his conservative caucus.
All this as the clock ticks down toward a debt default.
####################
When situations like this come up, it clearly shows that regardless of what some people may want to believe there's a clear difference between the two parties. Holy crap is McConnell nuts.
He's not crazy, he's setting the supposed center of this discussion deep in right wing territory.mckmas8808 said:
So when we eventually come to an agreement that is 80% austerity and 20% removing tax loopholes, he can paint himself as the pragmatic politician reaching across the isle.
The say the definition of madness is trying the same thing and expecting different results.
But that definition, Obama is the crazy person here.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Chichikov said:
So you believe that accepting a 80% austerity and 20% removing tax loopholes is crazy and not something that Obama and the DEMs should accept?
Do you not agree with paying any sort of income tax then? Because that's exactly what our progressive tax system is for: redistributing wealth. It currently does a shit job of it, but that is the end effect of the US tax system as it is.Kosmo said:
I'm really inclined to side with quadriplegicjon here.
empty vessel
Member
mckmas8808 said:
I do. In fact, they should accept nothing, since the problem is entirely fictitious to begin with.
empty vessel
Member
XMonkey said:
Not only that, but the economy doesn't have a "natural" distribution from which to begin any "redistribution." Money is constantly circulating and decisions about who gets what are being made everyday. Having these decisions being made in a corporate boardroom isn't any more "natural" than having them made by a congress of duly elected citizens. There are no redistributions of wealth and income, there are only particular distributions of it at any given time. The only question is what works, and, clearly, whatever we're doing isn't working, because the results--and, make no mistake, what matters is the results--are terrible. The way our wealth and income is distributed is wrong and has to be fixed in and of itself. Equality is a direct goal, not an incidental goal or mere metric, that has immense benefits for society in and of itself.
Buying into 1) the premise that we have a crisis and 2) that the solution is spending cuts have been disheartening to say the least. They lost the debate the moment they declined the opportunity to reframe it.empty vessel said:
All Obama has to do is hammer the point that doing nothing - leave current policy on track - solves the debt problem. Of course, that's not his plan, either, as he wants to preserve the bulk of the Bush tax cuts.
ChoklitReign
Member
Is this economics argument all about CEO salaries? I've been reading stuff on Weber and he says the reason they make so much money is because they have the most business power. I won't defend the actual 7-and-8-number salaries they make, but don't they deserve more money than workers who have less power, i.e. less influence in the market?
Which is it then? They make the most money because they hold the most power, or they hold the most power because they make the most money? It's a chicken-or-the-egg argument.ChoklitReign said:
And here's something else to chew on: these CEOs also hold the power to dictate average worker compensation, too. So where is the money going? Every trend signifies it goes into the CEO pockets and not their underlings.
So, let me ask you again, do they hold the most power because they make the most amount of money?
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
ChoklitReign said:
Didn't you answer your own question by pivoting on which you will not defend? Nobody is suggesting they should be paid the same as their workers.
ChoklitReign
Member
CEOs can inherit power, like the Rockefellers, but most I assume worked in small businesses and moved up. To PantherLotus, I assume we're only opposed to something Kosmo said.reilo said:
As abhorrent and condemnable as Qaddafi's actions are, they do not approach the crime of genocide. And the specific charges reflect that. Genocide and similar allusions were presented to justify the intervention. Again, those charges were grossly exaggerated.Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
They qualify as insurgents. I am not taking his word. I am simply noting that Qaddafi is prone to hyperbole and bombast. And he often contradicts himself. I do not think his threats were as significant as they were portrayed.lo escondido said:
All good? Probably not. But that outcome would have been preferable to the current mess.
Yes, I cheered for them. Lamentably, not every uprising will be successful. That is a doleful aspect of reality.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
GaimeGuy said:
Not to be cute, but since I work with a lot of engineers: YOU show me an engineer that can manage more than two people.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Chichikov said:
So what happens when August 2 comes and the debt ceiling isn't raised?
GhaleonEB said:
Well to be fair that's nothing wrong with cutting some spending. Obviously we have to do some spending cuts along with raising some taxes. We can't do one without the other no?
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
GaimeGuy said:
They have ALOT more responsibility. That's the point. And it's a valid point.
- Status