If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Hope you are enjoying your low paying, no benefit job. Slaving your life away for "The Man". Don't get fired reading about these CEO perks. One will make more than you will ever make after he's dead   (finance.yahoo.com) divider line 318
    More: Sick  
•       •       •

16532 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Apr 2011 at 1:27 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



318 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-04-05 03:23:54 PM  

WaltzingMathilda: i've never said they always make the right decisions. they either make the right decisions for their company or they don't. but i maintain they are not obligated to make the "morally right" decision for the people of these united states.


Let me ask you this: what are your thoughts on anti-trust laws? If the picture you paint of pathological mechanics of corporations and its controlling members as justified, why then not allow companies that have collected enough capital and controls enough infrastructure to freely use any tactic they wish to stifle competitors? Is that not free market? Would you consider the circle-jerk of the wealthiest business titans today; sitting on each other's company's board of directors and inflating all of their pay, not a form of collusion similar to trusts in the past?

Is the existence of anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws morally justified or a means to an end for the betterment of the economy?

CEO's and company boards are as "obligated" to not be dip into the corporate bank account excessively as capitalists in the past were not "obligated" to not collude with each other and fix prices.

Yet, there is no question that both from a practicality standpoint, such vast wealth disparity is unhealthy for both society and the economy as a whole and from a moral standpoint, many many people have achieved their level of wealth through questionable, often borderline criminal methods.

Yes, by the pure mechanics of capitalism, they're not "obligated" to not engage in tactics such as collusion (I'm on your board, you're on my board), economic ransom (pay me tons or I'll divulge your secrets), and sheer outlandish demands ($2 million birthday party); and certainly this applies to only a portion of CEO's out there. But just because they're not "obligated" by the pure mechanics of capitalism doesn't mean that they are all of a sudden free from the moral judgement as people. Saying "it's capitalism" isn't a free pass at unfettered, pathological greed. These are people as well.

So yes, we judge them. Just as we'd judge predatory lending companies; even though they're "just doing what a company is supposed to do". Just as we judge mega-churches who scare money out of people. Just as we judge a company who practices bullying tactics towards smaller competitors.

"It's just business" is not a free pass at doing things that are technically legal but morally despicable. And it's appalling that I have to explain this.
 
2011-04-05 03:25:25 PM  

WaltzingMathilda: Philip Francis Queeg: WaltzingMathilda: i've never said they always make the right decisions. they either make the right decisions for their company or they don't. but i maintain they are not obligated to make the "morally right" decision for the people of these united states.

Does the lack of obligation mean that criticism of making morally wrong decisions isn't justified?

Do the people of the United States have the right to defend themselves against entities that repeatedly choose to make morally wrong decisions that effect them negatively?

do what you must, but don't expect an echo chamber.


Oh, believe me. I don't expect everyone to stand up for what's morally right. I expect a great many people to defend greed, selfishness and economic injustice.
 
2011-04-05 03:26:27 PM  

imgod2u: WaltzingMathilda: i've never said they always make the right decisions. they either make the right decisions for their company or they don't. but i maintain they are not obligated to make the "morally right" decision for the people of these united states.

Let me ask you this: what are your thoughts on anti-trust laws? If the picture you paint of pathological mechanics of corporations and its controlling members as justified, why then not allow companies that have collected enough capital and controls enough infrastructure to freely use any tactic they wish to stifle competitors? Is that not free market? Would you consider the circle-jerk of the wealthiest business titans today; sitting on each other's company's board of directors and inflating all of their pay, not a form of collusion similar to trusts in the past?

Is the existence of anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws morally justified or a means to an end for the betterment of the economy?

CEO's and company boards are as "obligated" to not be dip into the corporate bank account excessively as capitalists in the past were not "obligated" to not collude with each other and fix prices.

Yet, there is no question that both from a practicality standpoint, such vast wealth disparity is unhealthy for both society and the economy as a whole and from a moral standpoint, many many people have achieved their level of wealth through questionable, often borderline criminal methods.

Yes, by the pure mechanics of capitalism, they're not "obligated" to not engage in tactics such as collusion (I'm on your board, you're on my board), economic ransom (pay me tons or I'll divulge your secrets), and sheer outlandish demands ($2 million birthday party); and certainly this applies to only a portion of CEO's out there. But just because they're not "obligated" by the pure mechanics of capitalism doesn't mean that they are all of a sudden free from the moral judgement as people. Saying "it's capitalism" isn't a free pass at unfettered, pathological greed. These are people as well.

So yes, we judge them. Just as we'd judge predatory lending companies; even though they're "just doing what a company is supposed to do". Just as we judge mega-churches who scare money out of people. Just as we judge a company who practices bullying tactics towards smaller competitors.

"It's just business" is not a free pass at doing things that are technically legal but morally despicable. And it's appalling that I have to explain this.


nothing you said contradicts my statement, so really you didn't HAVE to explain it. you don't have to be appalled now that you know that. do you feel better/less appalled? i hope so.
 
2011-04-05 03:27:20 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: WaltzingMathilda: Philip Francis Queeg: WaltzingMathilda: i've never said they always make the right decisions. they either make the right decisions for their company or they don't. but i maintain they are not obligated to make the "morally right" decision for the people of these united states.

Does the lack of obligation mean that criticism of making morally wrong decisions isn't justified?

Do the people of the United States have the right to defend themselves against entities that repeatedly choose to make morally wrong decisions that effect them negatively?

do what you must, but don't expect an echo chamber.

Oh, believe me. I don't expect everyone to stand up for what's morally right. I expect a great many people to defend greed, selfishness and economic injustice.


oh see that's where you go from reasonable debate to just hating the other side and imposing your own hateful judgments upon them. surely there are reasonable people whose views differ, no?
 
2011-04-05 03:30:42 PM  

tricycleracer: Occam's Nailfile: lohphat: Occam's Nailfile: OK. What's your beef with Oracle?

It's an H1B mill.

Ah, so it offends you that people who were born outside of the US should be able to compete against people who were born inside the US?

So you believe that global wage parity will be a good thing for mankind even though it will be achieved by a race to the bottom?


I disagree with your premise that there will be a race to the bottom. I believe that when opportunities are made equally available to all, regardless of race, national origin, or culture, the cream will rise to the top.

For all the talk about how the US hates brown people, I would think that the idea of creating job opportunities for people would be considered an act of compassion and global responsibility.

If Americans would rather sit on unemployment than work for less money, and foreign nationals are willing to work for whatever they can earn, it's our sloth and complacency that will be our undoing, and we will lose our status as a leader in the world. It's that simple.

The rest of the world is catching up to us technologically, and they can now compete with us. If we don't adapt, we'll collapse, and taxing companies more to pay for all the unemployed people sure as hell won't make us more competitive. Refusing to hire foreign nationals, or to offshore operations, will not stop the tides from turning. New foreign corporations will spring up and eat our lunch just as quickly.

Yeah, it sucks, but for fark's sake, the world is changing. A kid with an iPhone in Thailand has access to the same information and knowledge as a Harvard graduate in the US. Of course things are going to change.
 
2011-04-05 03:32:20 PM  

lohphat: Citation needed.

Which counties? When?

Denmark has a healthy economy, virtually no homeless problems, no one going bankrupt for getting sick, low infant morality, high literacy rate, and high tax rates to support it They have sane compensation rules to maintain a healthy economy and lifestyle.

Your blanket statement of "it's worked well" without specifics is an empty statement.


Denmark has the same system as the US with a few more socialist tweaks. Nothing inherently different that I can see. Which as I said is the same general system that has worked for the western world for a long time now. They still have employees who work for bosses in companies owned by other people and if I read correctly they can even be fired at any time.

And frankly if you don't understand the inherent advantages of having a homogeneous small country and culture then you're a lost cause. Given that even other European countries haven't replicated the system successfully shows that it's an outlier rather than some new brilliant approach that can magically fix things. Laws don't drive cultural changes, cultural change drives laws. The moment the average American no longer believes the dollar and the plastic stuff you get at walmart are god is the moment that things will change.
 
2011-04-05 03:34:01 PM  

WaltzingMathilda: Philip Francis Queeg: WaltzingMathilda: Philip Francis Queeg: WaltzingMathilda: i've never said they always make the right decisions. they either make the right decisions for their company or they don't. but i maintain they are not obligated to make the "morally right" decision for the people of these united states.

Does the lack of obligation mean that criticism of making morally wrong decisions isn't justified?

Do the people of the United States have the right to defend themselves against entities that repeatedly choose to make morally wrong decisions that effect them negatively?

do what you must, but don't expect an echo chamber.

Oh, believe me. I don't expect everyone to stand up for what's morally right. I expect a great many people to defend greed, selfishness and economic injustice.

oh see that's where you go from reasonable debate to just hating the other side and imposing your own hateful judgments upon them. surely there are reasonable people whose views differ, no?


We're talking about what's "morally right". YOU introduced that term into the discussion. Criticizing those who don't do what's "morally right" is now hateful?
 
2011-04-05 03:35:58 PM  

BKITU: EWreckedSean: Do people actually believe charts like this are true?

Average Salary for CEOs (new window)

Are there extremely large companies where that is true? Sure. But your average CEO is making 3 to 5 times what their average employee makes.

PROTIP: CEO salaries are not the largest portion of CEO compensation packages. Using that metric is disingenuous.

BONUS PROTIP: These same people lobby hardest to get low capital gains tax rates. This is not a coincidence.


That site includes bonuses, profit sharing and commission in the number, so it isn't indigenousness. Besides which, for most companies, salary is absolutely the largest portion of a CEOs compensation packages. Most corporations aren't multi-billion dollar Fortune 500 companies.
 
2011-04-05 03:36:26 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: WaltzingMathilda: Philip Francis Queeg: WaltzingMathilda: Philip Francis Queeg: WaltzingMathilda: i've never said they always make the right decisions. they either make the right decisions for their company or they don't. but i maintain they are not obligated to make the "morally right" decision for the people of these united states.

Does the lack of obligation mean that criticism of making morally wrong decisions isn't justified?

Do the people of the United States have the right to defend themselves against entities that repeatedly choose to make morally wrong decisions that effect them negatively?

do what you must, but don't expect an echo chamber.

Oh, believe me. I don't expect everyone to stand up for what's morally right. I expect a great many people to defend greed, selfishness and economic injustice.

oh see that's where you go from reasonable debate to just hating the other side and imposing your own hateful judgments upon them. surely there are reasonable people whose views differ, no?

We're talking about what's "morally right". YOU introduced that term into the discussion. Criticizing those who don't do what's "morally right" is now hateful?


were you not saying that disagreeing with you is a "defense of greed, selfishness and economic injustice"?
 
2011-04-05 03:37:08 PM  
 
2011-04-05 03:40:34 PM  

WaltzingMathilda: nothing you said contradicts my statement


Yes, it does. Comments such as:

"blaming industry is silly."

This is entirely the attitude of "industry and its controlling members are supposed to be pathological and greedy, there's nothing wrong with that".

Which is exactly what I explained above as idiotic. I can blame a monopoly for collusion, price fixing and predatory practices with or without laws against them. And they certainly should be blamed.

I can blame corporations for using child labor, or providing unsafe working conditions, or taking advantage of its industry position to pay its workers next to slave wages. These are all in line with pathological, profit-driven corporate activities. Do you propose "we can't blame the industry" for those as well?
 
2011-04-05 03:42:38 PM  

WaltzingMathilda: Philip Francis Queeg: WaltzingMathilda: Philip Francis Queeg: WaltzingMathilda: Philip Francis Queeg: WaltzingMathilda: i've never said they always make the right decisions. they either make the right decisions for their company or they don't. but i maintain they are not obligated to make the "morally right" decision for the people of these united states.

Does the lack of obligation mean that criticism of making morally wrong decisions isn't justified?

Do the people of the United States have the right to defend themselves against entities that repeatedly choose to make morally wrong decisions that effect them negatively?

do what you must, but don't expect an echo chamber.

Oh, believe me. I don't expect everyone to stand up for what's morally right. I expect a great many people to defend greed, selfishness and economic injustice.

oh see that's where you go from reasonable debate to just hating the other side and imposing your own hateful judgments upon them. surely there are reasonable people whose views differ, no?

We're talking about what's "morally right". YOU introduced that term into the discussion. Criticizing those who don't do what's "morally right" is now hateful?

were you not saying that disagreeing with you is a "defense of greed, selfishness and economic injustice"?


Were you being hateful when you were talking about doing things that aren't "morally right? How is that any less judgmental on your part?
 
2011-04-05 03:43:23 PM  

imgod2u: WaltzingMathilda: nothing you said contradicts my statement

Yes, it does. Comments such as:

"blaming industry is silly."

This is entirely the attitude of "industry and its controlling members are supposed to be pathological and greedy, there's nothing wrong with that".

Which is exactly what I explained above as idiotic. I can blame a monopoly for collusion, price fixing and predatory practices with or without laws against them. And they certainly should be blamed.

I can blame corporations for using child labor, or providing unsafe working conditions, or taking advantage of its industry position to pay its workers next to slave wages. These are all in line with pathological, profit-driven corporate activities. Do you propose "we can't blame the industry" for those as well?


slaves don't make wages.

and workers work for what they're willing to work for.

hyperbole, not an effective debate tool.
 
2011-04-05 03:45:29 PM  
My wife wants half my income for the divorce. She quit her job during the divorce and needs me to pay her spousal support. So now I am creating a business to hire her because she needs a job and some how I owe her. Then I will not need to give her her spousal support. The end.
 
2011-04-05 03:45:33 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: WaltzingMathilda: Philip Francis Queeg: WaltzingMathilda: Philip Francis Queeg: WaltzingMathilda: Philip Francis Queeg: WaltzingMathilda: i've never said they always make the right decisions. they either make the right decisions for their company or they don't. but i maintain they are not obligated to make the "morally right" decision for the people of these united states.

Does the lack of obligation mean that criticism of making morally wrong decisions isn't justified?

Do the people of the United States have the right to defend themselves against entities that repeatedly choose to make morally wrong decisions that effect them negatively?

do what you must, but don't expect an echo chamber.

Oh, believe me. I don't expect everyone to stand up for what's morally right. I expect a great many people to defend greed, selfishness and economic injustice.

oh see that's where you go from reasonable debate to just hating the other side and imposing your own hateful judgments upon them. surely there are reasonable people whose views differ, no?

We're talking about what's "morally right". YOU introduced that term into the discussion. Criticizing those who don't do what's "morally right" is now hateful?

were you not saying that disagreeing with you is a "defense of greed, selfishness and economic injustice"?

Were you being hateful when you were talking about doing things that aren't "morally right? How is that any less judgmental on your part?


perhaps we misunderstand one another. fair enough to squash the point.

i will be clear for my part: i disagree with a lot of the sentiment in this thread. i do not believe that makes me a defender of greed, selfishness or economic injustice. i believe there are problems, and i believe the guillotine is a ridiculous solution.
 
2011-04-05 03:46:45 PM  

WaltzingMathilda: ... i maintain they are not obligated to make the "morally right" decision for the people of these united states.

 
2011-04-05 03:47:59 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: If Americans would rather sit on unemployment than work for less money, and foreign nationals are willing to work for whatever they can earn, it's our sloth and complacency that will be our undoing, and we will lose our status as a leader in the world. It's that simple.

Then compete with the unemployed and pay more.




The rest of the world is catching up to us technologically, and they can now compete with us. If we don't adapt, we'll collapse, and taxing companies more to pay for all the unemployed people sure as hell won't make us more competitive. Refusing to hire foreign nationals, or to offshore operations, will not stop the tides from turning. New foreign corporations will spring up and eat our lunch just as quickly.


Then adapt our economy to repel them in our favor. We have military and intelligence bureaus that can cause infinite hell for these companies offshore. Helping our own, would only be adapting to an increasingly hostile-to-the-US world.


When I hear someone talking the words competitive or global, I get out a gun because I am about to be robbed. Doubly so since you're willing to sell out this nation and the individuals within the US to some despot. If there ever is a HUAC, you are prime material for being on it.
 
2011-04-05 03:49:07 PM  

please: WaltzingMathilda: ... i maintain they are not obligated to make the "morally right" decision for the people of these united states.


yes, and they may fail to make the "morally right" decision for the people of these united states without simultaneously make the "morally wrong" decision

there is a HUGE gray area of neutral
 
2011-04-05 03:50:00 PM  

WaltzingMathilda: imgod2u: WaltzingMathilda: nothing you said contradicts my statement

Yes, it does. Comments such as:

"blaming industry is silly."

This is entirely the attitude of "industry and its controlling members are supposed to be pathological and greedy, there's nothing wrong with that".

Which is exactly what I explained above as idiotic. I can blame a monopoly for collusion, price fixing and predatory practices with or without laws against them. And they certainly should be blamed.

I can blame corporations for using child labor, or providing unsafe working conditions, or taking advantage of its industry position to pay its workers next to slave wages. These are all in line with pathological, profit-driven corporate activities. Do you propose "we can't blame the industry" for those as well?

slaves don't make wages.


Now you're just being obtuse.

and workers work for what they're willing to work for.

hyperbole, not an effective debate tool.


I'm not using hyperbole. I'm demonstrating using past examples that there are things we judge and blame corporations and that it is not suppose to be purely a pathological, profit-driven system.

If you agree that the actions of monopolies of the past, such as Standard Oil's price undercutting, steel and textile industry's use of child labor and the low wages of workers were not just morally wrong but that said company should indeed receive ire and judgement for such actions, then you have effectively agreed with my point.

If not, and you are willing to stand behind your assertion that industry is nothing more than purely pathological, then we'll agree to disagree. But then I have to ask, why are anti-trust, minimum wage and child labor laws justified?
 
2011-04-05 03:53:37 PM  

WaltzingMathilda: slaves don't make wages.


China would be a huge farking counterpoint to that.

Screw that, the entire Third World. Explain how the 19th Century labor conditions seem to go on in Third World, with no progression upwards? The despotic government that our nation sells out to, in the name of business friendliness, is the government we have to become - in the name of competitiveness?

In short:
Do we have to become as despotic - and lose freedom - as the Third World countries to be competitive?
 
2011-04-05 03:55:17 PM  

imgod2u: WaltzingMathilda: imgod2u: WaltzingMathilda: nothing you said contradicts my statement

Yes, it does. Comments such as:

"blaming industry is silly."

This is entirely the attitude of "industry and its controlling members are supposed to be pathological and greedy, there's nothing wrong with that".

Which is exactly what I explained above as idiotic. I can blame a monopoly for collusion, price fixing and predatory practices with or without laws against them. And they certainly should be blamed.

I can blame corporations for using child labor, or providing unsafe working conditions, or taking advantage of its industry position to pay its workers next to slave wages. These are all in line with pathological, profit-driven corporate activities. Do you propose "we can't blame the industry" for those as well?

slaves don't make wages.

Now you're just being obtuse.

and workers work for what they're willing to work for.

hyperbole, not an effective debate tool.

I'm not using hyperbole. I'm demonstrating using past examples that there are things we judge and blame corporations and that it is not suppose to be purely a pathological, profit-driven system.

If you agree that the actions of monopolies of the past, such as Standard Oil's price undercutting, steel and textile industry's use of child labor and the low wages of workers were not just morally wrong but that said company should indeed receive ire and judgement for such actions, then you have effectively agreed with my point.

If not, and you are willing to stand behind your assertion that industry is nothing more than purely pathological, then we'll agree to disagree. But then I have to ask, why are anti-trust, minimum wage and child labor laws justified?


calling wages that are above the national minimum wage "slave wages" is, indeed, hyperbole.

i agree with antitrust laws, child labor laws, and minimum wage laws.

how is that supposed to contradict my statement that when it comes to distribution of a private company's wealth, that a board of directors may distribute, invest or otherwise dispose of the same as it sees fit so long as it is not in violation of existing laws and regulations?

and how does it contradict my statement that a company has no obligation to provide jobs which current demand does not warrant?

i'm not really sure why saying "other things businesses used to do are bad, so you have to believe this current thing is bad too or you are contradicting yourself"

some things should be regulated. some things do not warrant regulation. there are many disincentives to paying officers more than they are worth, and capping executive pay (which is the alternative, right?) is pretty destructive.
 
2011-04-05 03:55:49 PM  

WaltzingMathilda:
i will be clear for my part: i disagree with a lot of the sentiment in this thread. i do not believe that makes me a defender of greed, selfishness or economic injustice. i believe there are problems, and i believe the guillotine is a ridiculous solution.


Would you characterize any of the companies and executives that have been discussed as doing things that were not "morally right"?

Would you characterize any of those actions as being the result of "greed" or "selfishness"?

Would you say that any of those actions lead to "economic injustice"?
 
2011-04-05 03:56:22 PM  

sethstorm: WaltzingMathilda: slaves don't make wages.

China would be a huge farking counterpoint to that.

Screw that, the entire Third World. Explain how the 19th Century labor conditions seem to go on in Third World, with no progression upwards? The despotic government that our nation sells out to, in the name of business friendliness, is the government we have to become - in the name of competitiveness?

In short:
Do we have to become as despotic - and lose freedom - as the Third World countries to be competitive?


slaves don't make wages
 
2011-04-05 03:57:25 PM  

sethstorm: WaltzingMathilda: slaves don't make wages.

China would be a huge farking counterpoint to that.


We prefer to call them 'indentured servants.'
 
2011-04-05 03:57:38 PM  

sethstorm: China would be a huge farking counterpoint to that.

Screw that, the entire Third World. Explain how the 19th Century labor conditions seem to go on in Third World, with no progression upwards? The despotic government that our nation sells out to, in the name of business friendliness, is the government we have to become - in the name of competitiveness


Huh? Most of the third world, well not counting all the places that where economy is an abstract term, is improving dramatically. Insanely so even. I take it you've never actually talked to a person from China or India, have you? Or are you one of those idiots who thinks farming a rice field is some sort of leisurely peaceful activity that ranks close to a vacation?
 
2011-04-05 03:57:45 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: WaltzingMathilda:
i will be clear for my part: i disagree with a lot of the sentiment in this thread. i do not believe that makes me a defender of greed, selfishness or economic injustice. i believe there are problems, and i believe the guillotine is a ridiculous solution.

Would you characterize any of the companies and executives that have been discussed as doing things that were not "morally right"?

Would you characterize any of those actions as being the result of "greed" or "selfishness"?

Would you say that any of those actions lead to "economic injustice"?


a. perhaps some, but definitely not all
b. perhaps some, but definitely not all
c. perhaps sometimes, but definitely not all the time

and finally, paying decision makers a lot more than button pushers is not selfish, greedy, or economically unjust.
 
2011-04-05 04:01:37 PM  

sethstorm: WaltzingMathilda: slaves don't make wages.

China would be a huge farking counterpoint to that.

Screw that, the entire Third World. Explain how the 19th Century labor conditions seem to go on in Third World, with no progression upwards? The despotic government that our nation sells out to, in the name of business friendliness, is the government we have to become - in the name of competitiveness?

In short:
Do we have to become as despotic - and lose freedom - as the Third World countries to be competitive?


No, but in manufacturing, we definitely have to wait for the developing world to catch up to us, or at least get closer to us where the disadvantages of exporting cheap foreign labor become more of a factor.
 
2011-04-05 04:02:07 PM  

WaltzingMathilda: and finally, paying decision makers a lot more than button pushers is not selfish, greedy, or economically unjust.


A huge THIS to this. The laws of supply and demand dictate that broom pushers are at less of a premium than people that can lead.
 
2011-04-05 04:04:26 PM  

WaltzingMathilda:

and finally, paying decision makers a lot more than button pushers is not selfish, greedy, or economically unjust.


Is there any limit on that blanket statement?

If the lowly, worthless "button pushers" are making below subsistence wages, while the noble, valued "decision makers" are making hundreds of millions, could that ever rise to being "greed", "selfishness" or "economic injustice"?
 
2011-04-05 04:05:20 PM  

WaltzingMathilda: imgod2u: WaltzingMathilda: imgod2u: WaltzingMathilda: nothing you said contradicts my statement

Yes, it does. Comments such as:

"blaming industry is silly."

This is entirely the attitude of "industry and its controlling members are supposed to be pathological and greedy, there's nothing wrong with that".

Which is exactly what I explained above as idiotic. I can blame a monopoly for collusion, price fixing and predatory practices with or without laws against them. And they certainly should be blamed.

I can blame corporations for using child labor, or providing unsafe working conditions, or taking advantage of its industry position to pay its workers next to slave wages. These are all in line with pathological, profit-driven corporate activities. Do you propose "we can't blame the industry" for those as well?

slaves don't make wages.

Now you're just being obtuse.

and workers work for what they're willing to work for.

hyperbole, not an effective debate tool.

I'm not using hyperbole. I'm demonstrating using past examples that there are things we judge and blame corporations and that it is not suppose to be purely a pathological, profit-driven system.

If you agree that the actions of monopolies of the past, such as Standard Oil's price undercutting, steel and textile industry's use of child labor and the low wages of workers were not just morally wrong but that said company should indeed receive ire and judgement for such actions, then you have effectively agreed with my point.

If not, and you are willing to stand behind your assertion that industry is nothing more than purely pathological, then we'll agree to disagree. But then I have to ask, why are anti-trust, minimum wage and child labor laws justified?

calling wages that are above the national minimum wage "slave wages" is, indeed, hyperbole.


I believe the period I was referencing to had no national minimum wage at the time and indeed these "slave wages" were the reason such laws were passed.

i agree with antitrust laws, child labor laws, and minimum wage laws.

how is that supposed to contradict my statement that when it comes to distribution of a private company's wealth, that a board of directors may distribute, invest or otherwise dispose of the same as it sees fit so long as it is not in violation of existing laws and regulations?


It contradicts your point that any and all action by the corporation in the name of profit is immune from moral judgement. Or, as you put it: "but i maintain they are not obligated to make the "morally right" decision for the people of these united states."

i'm not really sure why saying "other things businesses used to do are bad, so you have to believe this current thing is bad too or you are contradicting yourself"

I'm saying "there are things businesses can do that can be deemed bad". Get it? Your assertion that "the only obligation a business has is pathological profit seeking" is false.

some things should be regulated. some things do not warrant regulation.

Why? What is your reasoning behind regulation? If a corporation is supposed to be pathologically profit driven and if the only obligation it has is return of investment, then isn't anything they do in that pursuit kosher?
 
2011-04-05 04:06:14 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: WaltzingMathilda:

and finally, paying decision makers a lot more than button pushers is not selfish, greedy, or economically unjust.

Is there any limit on that blanket statement?

If the lowly, worthless "button pushers" are making below subsistence wages, while the noble, valued "decision makers" are making hundreds of millions, could that ever rise to being "greed", "selfishness" or "economic injustice"?


well ... i think the limit is minimum wage laws, is it not?
 
2011-04-05 04:06:15 PM  

R.A.Danny: A huge THIS to this. The laws of supply and demand dictate that broom pushers are at less of a premium than people that can lead.


Yeah... our corporate overlords are doing a fantastic job.

But I agree, leadership skills are important and rare. That's why I'm waiting for a charismatic demagogue that will lead us to swarm Wall Street.
 
2011-04-05 04:07:07 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: If the lowly, worthless "button pushers" are making below subsistence wages, while the noble, valued "decision makers" are making hundreds of millions, could that ever rise to being "greed", "selfishness" or "economic injustice"?


You are the one calling them lowly. I know that I have never looked down on someone working hard for a living.
 
2011-04-05 04:08:02 PM  

WaltzingMathilda: well ... i think the limit is minimum wage laws, is it not?


Why not get rid of that?

Why should legislation impose an artifical barrier to the worker-employer relationship?

If we accept your implicit assumption that the worker-employer relationship is not exploitative in nature, then why shouldn't the employer be free to offer whatever number he or she likes to potential employees?
 
2011-04-05 04:08:06 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: I disagree with your premise that there will be a race to the bottom. I believe that when opportunities are made equally available to all, regardless of race, national origin, or culture, the cream will rise to the top.

For all the talk about how the US hates brown people, I would think that the idea of creating job opportunities for people would be considered an act of compassion and global responsibility.


There's the rub.

In India if you pass the test and belong to the right caste you go to university. In the US you go into 6 figure debt as a wage slave.
 
2011-04-05 04:10:31 PM  

WaltzingMathilda: Philip Francis Queeg: WaltzingMathilda:

and finally, paying decision makers a lot more than button pushers is not selfish, greedy, or economically unjust.

Is there any limit on that blanket statement?

If the lowly, worthless "button pushers" are making below subsistence wages, while the noble, valued "decision makers" are making hundreds of millions, could that ever rise to being "greed", "selfishness" or "economic injustice"?

well ... i think the limit is minimum wage laws, is it not?


In this country yes. But what about those CEO who chose to shift operations to countries without a minimum wage to depress their employment costs, and where they can get away with paying below subsistence wages?

Secondly, once you moved the conversation into the sphere of what is "morally right" the law became kind of a moot point. If the minimum wage was repealed would you see any point at which employee pay became low enough to be morally wrong?
 
2011-04-05 04:10:59 PM  

WaltzingMathilda: sethstorm: WaltzingMathilda: slaves don't make wages.

China would be a huge farking counterpoint to that.

Screw that, the entire Third World. Explain how the 19th Century labor conditions seem to go on in Third World, with no progression upwards? The despotic government that our nation sells out to, in the name of business friendliness, is the government we have to become - in the name of competitiveness?

In short:
Do we have to become as despotic - and lose freedom - as the Third World countries to be competitive?

slaves don't make wages


Except for the part where they're paid just enough to pay off the debt owed to the company.
 
2011-04-05 04:10:59 PM  

EWreckedSean: No, but in manufacturing, we definitely have to wait for the developing world to catch up to us, or at least get closer to us where the disadvantages of exporting cheap foreign labor become more of a factor.


Yeah. One has to keep in mind that it took the western world, what, two centuries or so to progress through the industrial revolution with all it's social changes. The developing world is starting with a lot less, a larger population, and has been at it for only two or three decades. Raising a billion people from poverty to the middle class takes time and till then there's still going to be cheap labor in some poverty stricken little village deeper in the country.
 
2011-04-05 04:11:34 PM  

WaltzingMathilda: please: WaltzingMathilda: ... i maintain they are not obligated to make the "morally right" decision for the people of these united states.

yes, and they may fail to make the "morally right" decision for the people of these united states without simultaneously make the "morally wrong" decision

there is a HUGE gray area of neutral


No, I think you nailed it.

WaltzingMathilda: ... i maintain they are not obligated to make the "morally right" decision for the people of these united states.


Right or wrong or gray is inconsequential, even irrelevant to them.

WaltzingMathilda: ... i maintain they are not obligated to make the "morally right" decision for the people of these united states.



Let it ring, I say.
 
2011-04-05 04:11:44 PM  

imgod2u: I'm saying "there are things businesses can do that can be deemed bad". Get it? Your assertion that "the only obligation a business has is pathological profit seeking" is false.


i assumed that "within the confines of current law" was implied. if not, what's the point of the discussion. i'll modify, just so we're clear "a CEO's only task is to maximize the return of its company's owners' investment within the confines of current law"

imgod2u: I believe the period I was referencing to had no national minimum wage at the time and indeed these "slave wages" were the reason such laws were passed.


i had assumed you meant today's disparity is = paying slave wages. was it not? if not, we can dismiss the point. but then, why are you in this thread?

imgod2u: Why? What is your reasoning behind regulation? If a corporation is supposed to be pathologically profit driven and if the only obligation it has is return of investment, then isn't anything they do in that pursuit kosher?


some business activities have been deemed unfair to other companies, and using an unfair advantage to stifle competition ... its so-called immoral choices are no longer limited to consequences within its own ranks, but are infringing on another's right to enter the market.

why on earth are you asking me to say that regulation should be an all or nothing thing simply because i believe that paying officers a lot of money is not "wrong?" it's f*cking silly to have a fantastical discussion that ignores reality and pretends everything is an all or nothing game.
 
2011-04-05 04:14:22 PM  

Rakishi: Huh? Most of the third world, well not counting all the places that where economy is an abstract term, is improving dramatically. Insanely so even. I take it you've never actually talked to a person from China or India, have you? Or are you one of those idiots who thinks farming a rice field is some sort of leisurely peaceful activity that ranks close to a vacation?


When wages were $1 a day and they didn't have power to now having $10 a day wages and power most days and maybe fresh water and sometimes a sewer system, then yes. They're improving.

Improving at the expense of current workers livluhoods in societies which built up their infrastructure earlier.

We're dismantling what we've built to enrichen the very top and the very bottom of the world wealth scale to create a huge chasm virtually no one can cross. We're returning to feudalism.
 
2011-04-05 04:14:26 PM  

R.A.Danny: Philip Francis Queeg: If the lowly, worthless "button pushers" are making below subsistence wages, while the noble, valued "decision makers" are making hundreds of millions, could that ever rise to being "greed", "selfishness" or "economic injustice"?

You are the one calling them lowly. I know that I have never looked down on someone working hard for a living.


Your sarcasm meter is on the fritz. Maybe you need a "Button pusher" to fix it. Or you could just throw it out and let one of those "broom pushers" sweep it up for a few pennies an hour.
 
2011-04-05 04:14:33 PM  

The_Gallant_Gallstone: WaltzingMathilda: well ... i think the limit is minimum wage laws, is it not?

Why not get rid of that?

Why should legislation impose an artifical barrier to the worker-employer relationship?

If we accept your implicit assumption that the worker-employer relationship is not exploitative in nature, then why shouldn't the employer be free to offer whatever number he or she likes to potential employees?


why the straw man? we are arguing that there is some kind of injustice in paying workers at currently legal wage minimums while paying CEOs what the board determines he is worth. why would that suggest i think the nature of the business wouldn't be exploitative minus a minimum wage requirement?

don't we already have history to tell us that is not the case?
 
2011-04-05 04:15:08 PM  

sethstorm:

slaves don't make wages

Except for the part where they're paid just enough to pay off the debt owed to the company.


wtf are you even talking about anymore.
 
2011-04-05 04:15:53 PM  

please: Let it ring, I say.


please expand on your point. are you agreeing with me or no?
 
2011-04-05 04:16:03 PM  

Lamune_Baba: sethstorm: WaltzingMathilda: slaves don't make wages.

China would be a huge farking counterpoint to that.

We prefer to call them 'indentured servants.'


Other valid forms include: temporary workers, contract workers, or any part of the vocabulary that represents fixed-term labor with a lopsided advantage given to the business.
 
2011-04-05 04:17:04 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Occam's Nailfile: Tricky Chicken: This is what I picture all you CEO haters muttering

"I started out mopping floors. But now, I'm on vegetable prep. Soon I'll be workin' the grill.

After that it's assistant manager, and that's when the big bucks start rollin' in."

I crack up everytime you whine about the "rich are getting richer and the poor and middle class are getting screwed".

If you don't like it so much, stop being poor!

I don't know if you're trolling or not, but I absolutely agree with you even if you are.

Give me a minimum wage earner with no college degree and the ability to tell him or her what to do for 10 years. I will give you back a millionaire.

Not a troll at all. I grew up poor, I didn't like it, so I made thousands of choices to not be poor and now I'm doing all right.

I chose to pay attention in school.
I chose not to have sex and have kids.
I chose to study instead of laying around.
I chose to avoid drugs.
I chose to stay away from lazy people.
ask questions till the answers made sense
gave up on religeon
and so on and so on.

Poor people choose to be poor. They may not know it, but that is what they do. Their initial choice may be different, but the eventual chain leads them to poverty.

You hear the same excuses over and over.

"You can't earn a living on minimum wage." You aren't supposed to plan your career as a burger flipper.

"I can't make ends meet with three kids and no degree." Well, that's four stupid choices you made right there.

"I can't get a job with a record." Don't get a record.

"I can't get off the crack." Don't start.

Your excuses are not my problem. I didn't make your stupid choices, and I don't feel bad that you made them. I really don't feel any need to support your dumb ass either.

And yeah, I'd like fries with that you stupid tattoo on your face HS dropout with 3 kids from three different welfare shamoo women.


My god... its like someone opened a huge window on a windy day.
smmmmmmmmmm.... aahhhhhh fresh air.
 
2011-04-05 04:22:21 PM  

WaltzingMathilda: imgod2u: I'm saying "there are things businesses can do that can be deemed bad". Get it? Your assertion that "the only obligation a business has is pathological profit seeking" is false.

i assumed that "within the confines of current law" was implied. if not, what's the point of the discussion. i'll modify, just so we're clear "a CEO's only task is to maximize the return of its company's owners' investment within the confines of current law"


That's why I used past examples that occurred before laws to correct such actions existed. I am demonstrating that there are things -- even things that are legal at the time -- that corporations can do that can be deemed "bad" and that they shouldn't do.

Do you believe that before child labor laws existed, blaming corporations for abusing child labor would be "silly"?

imgod2u: I believe the period I was referencing to had no national minimum wage at the time and indeed these "slave wages" were the reason such laws were passed.

i had assumed you meant today's disparity is = paying slave wages.


The context of my argument (which I get the feeling you're not really getting) made it clear I was referencing corporations of the past (Standard Oil, textile industries, I even mentioned "corporations of the past").

imgod2u: Why? What is your reasoning behind regulation? If a corporation is supposed to be pathologically profit driven and if the only obligation it has is return of investment, then isn't anything they do in that pursuit kosher?

some business activities have been deemed unfair to other companies, and using an unfair advantage to stifle competition ... its so-called immoral choices are no longer limited to consequences within its own ranks, but are infringing on another's right to enter the market.

why on earth are you asking me to say that regulation should be an all or nothing thing simply because i believe that paying officers a lot of money is not "wrong?"


I like how you keep trying to point out that's all you were arguing for. I will quote again:

"but i maintain they are not obligated to make the "morally right" decision for the people of these united states."

"blaming corporations is silly"

It is these arguments I'm countering.
 
2011-04-05 04:22:35 PM  

doublesecretprobation: i have no problem with people like steve jobs getting insane perks, he's not driving his company into the ground while getting them. it's people like dennis kozlowski who should face the guillotine.


Odd, Apple is set for a 100 billion dollar year. Oil company does that and you would scream bloody murder. Everyone depends on oil, you never need an Apple product.
 
2011-04-05 04:23:26 PM  
Where do some of you idiots get the notion that you have a say in how the profits of a private business are spent?
 
Displayed 50 of 318 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report