imgod2u: 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.

well, those statements were made in this thread in reference to the topic at hand.

if you want to apply my comment that they have no obligation to make the morally right choice in all situations, then again, i will agree with that with the qualification that it is so as long as it's within the confines of current law.

if you want to change the laws for a perceived injustice, and that law would pass constitutional muster, then where have i argued that you are not free to do that? further up in the thread did i not tell people "if you want to run on that platform, then go ahead and run on it" or something along those lines?

what is it you want to argue about? whether or not people have a right to judge corporate actions? sure they do. like i told someone else, reasonable people may disagree and don't expect an echo chamber.

The_Gallant_Gallstone: WaltzingMathilda: 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?

Are you conceding, in your uniquely verbose way, that the worker-employer relationship is exploitative in nature?

Are minimum wage laws required to protect workers? If so, why?
If not, why do you support them?

Why do you call my assertion a "straw man"? Is it because you want to keep the conversation narrowly focused so that you don't need to face an inconsistency in your line of reasoning?

no, it's because you are assuming that my defense of officer compensation is somehow a slippery slope into unfettered free markets. it is not the case. i have always and consistently supported reasonably regulated capitalism.

case in point: NO ONE in these united states should make less than a properly calculated minimum wage. the fact that some companies might make exploitative decisions is why i support these laws. that does not make the relationship exploitative in nature and to think it is is akin to unfair stereotyping without proper empirical data for your claim.

we do not have laws against murder because without them ALL people would murder by nature.

have i adequately addressed your concerns about the consistency of my reasoning?

WaltzingMathilda: imgod2u: 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.

well, those statements were made in this thread in reference to the topic at hand.

Those statements were used as justification. The argument seemed to go "CEO pay is a natural function of how corporate structures work, corporate structures are pathologically profit-driven and do not have any moral obligations, therefore, the CEO pay is justified".

I pointed out that reasoning is flawed. Now, that is not to say I believe CEO pay as it exists is in and of itself somehow morally egregious (at least, in the general case). However, the reasoning you used to justify that stance is, again, flawed.

if you want to apply my comment that they have no obligation to make the morally right choice in all situations, then again, i will agree with that with the qualification that it is so as long as it's within the confines of current law.

I'm not sure what you're saying here, perhaps you can clarify. Are you claiming that the only moral obligations corporations have aside from pathological profit-seeking is whatever the current laws confine it to? That there is no "wrong" outside of "illegal"? In which case, I would ask whether you believed, prior to child labor laws, that corporations who abused child labor were doing anything wrong at the time. After all, they were operating within the confines of the laws that were current at the time.

if you want to change the laws for a perceived injustice, and that law would pass constitutional muster, then where have i argued that you are not free to do that?

I like how you're wording this. "That you are not free to do that". You have indicated many times that people shouldn't "get so riled up" about perceived injustice because corporations "are not obligated to make the "morally right" decision for the people of these united states."

True you never specifically said to bar people from participating in democracy (kudos, btw). However, what we're arguing here is whether you believe that there can be injustices committed by corporations even "within the confines of current law" that warrant not only public ire but legislative action. Or are they simply pathological entities with no obligation to "the people of these United States"?

You can argue whether or not current levels of CEO pay falls under the category of injustice worthy of legislation and I may even agree with you that it doesn't. However, the general argument "corporations owe no obligation to the public" used to justify that stance is ludicrous.

BigTimeCheater: Where do some of you idiots get the notion that you have a say in how the profits of a private business are spent?

It's not how they were spent, it's how they were made.

imgod2u: You have indicated many times that people shouldn't "get so riled up" about perceived injustice because corporations "are not obligated to make the "morally right" decision for the people of these united states."

actually my "riled up" comment was directed at the disingenuous use of a chart that does not convey enough information for its perceived goal.

imgod2u: True you never specifically said to bar people from participating in democracy (kudos, btw). However, what we're arguing here is whether you believe that there can be injustices committed by corporations even "within the confines of current law" that warrant not only public ire but legislative action. Or are they simply pathological entities with no obligation to "the people of these United States"?

why isn't it both? they are obligated to follow the law. if you want morality, legislate it. have i not answered your first question that when certain instances pop up that had not previously been legislated, i agreed with the legislative outcome? how are we not in total agreement here that they have only the obligations to maximize profits while following the law as it currently applies to them?

i have argued this already. i support minimum wage because some companies exploited workers. that legislation keeps the bad guys in check and has no effect on the good guys who weren't exploiting right?

but i would not call for a maximum wage for the same reason. and that is what i have argued in this thread (implicitly or not). the topic when i started was CEO pay.

but my question to you is: why can't a corporation be both a pathological entity trying to maximize its profits within the confines of the law, and capable of doing something that might be previously unheard of and therefore requiring new legislation? why does the possibility that some new law might be justifiable suddenly deconstruct my argument that corporations have only the moral obligations that are currently legislated to it?

i really don't see where we disagree or where my argument is faulty.

lohphat: BigTimeCheater: Where do some of you idiots get the notion that you have a say in how the profits of a private business are spent?

It's not how they were spent, it's how they were made.

it is? [looks at headline] ... wat?

WaltzingMathilda: imgod2u: True you never specifically said to bar people from participating in democracy (kudos, btw). However, what we're arguing here is whether you believe that there can be injustices committed by corporations even "within the confines of current law" that warrant not only public ire but legislative action. Or are they simply pathological entities with no obligation to "the people of these United States"?

why isn't it both?

Because it is contradictory.

they are obligated to follow the law. if you want morality, legislate it. have i not answered your first question that when certain instances pop up that had not previously been legislated, i agreed with the legislative outcome? how are we not in total agreement here that they have only the obligations to maximize profits while following the law as it currently applies to them?

We are not in agreement. Obligations of any individual or entity operating within our society go beyond skirting the letter of the law. Sometimes, corporations will heed these moral obligations on their own (many go above and beyond the government requirements for things such as environmentalism, for instance). Other times, legislation has to be passed to force such actions. Either way, implying that their sole concern not only is but should be pathological profit-seeking is farcical at best.

i have argued this already. i support minimum wage because some companies exploited workers. that legislation keeps the bad guys in check and has no effect on the good guys who weren't exploiting right?

But corporations are there solely for seeking profit. Why should they be concerned about whether the wages of their labor is at a sufficient standard? Moreover, they're not doing anything wrong when they paid low wages.

but i would not call for a maximum wage for the same reason. and that is what i have argued in this thread (implicitly or not). the topic when i started was CEO pay.

Like I said, your reasoning was flawed. Not that I disagree with your conclusion.

but my question to you is: why can't a corporation be both a pathological entity trying to maximize its profits within the confines of the law, and capable of doing something that might be previously unheard of and therefore requiring new legislation? why does the possibility that some new law might be justifiable suddenly deconstruct my argument that corporations have only the moral obligations that are currently legislated to it?

Do you believe something is a moral obligation only when it is legislated? And that before said legislation, there exists no moral element to said actions? In essence, before child labor laws, were corporations perfectly within reason and right to abuse child labor?

If the answer is no, then it is contradictory to your argument. Corporations have the same moral obligations to society as we all do. Just because it hasn't yet been codified into law doesn't mean it isn't wrong. In fact, that is why it can be codified into law, because it already was an obligation corporations weren't willingly fulfilling, thus requiring legislation to force them to.

Poisoning the water supply is wrong regardless of whether a law has been passed about it or not. Are you arguing corporations have no moral obligation whatsoever to avoid poisoning the water supply?

imgod2u: Do you believe something is a moral obligation only when it is legislated? And that before said legislation, there exists no moral element to said actions?

no, but i have been consistent in my argument that corporations don't have the obligation to make moral choices that aren't legislated. i have never said that legislation that is constitutional should not be created to deal with perceived bad guy behavior.

perhaps you're saying that what may be later codified as a prohibited behavior is something that always should have been understood as prohibited? if that's the case, that's dangerous thinking. some things reasonable people would argue are not wrong. such as how much a CEO makes, perhaps? therefore, yes, a corporation should adhere only to the laws as they stand when determining how to maximize its value and profitability.

i willingly concede that i do not understand where you think my reasoning is flawed and i do not see where we disagree. perhaps you are not being clear, or perhaps i'm just not at your level of intelligence.

sethstorm: Doing right by choice is the preferred option, but forcing business is increasingly becoming an unavoidable option. The ball is in their court, it is up to business to choose what they want before them. It will be the fault of business alone if they wish to drink from the wrong cup, for it will be their choice.

i picture you living deep in the Appalachians wearing lipstick and polishing your guns and dreaming of some world where people who speak like you are revered as intelligent gods and not total maniacs.

Ambient: Interestingly enough, Apple is paying its newly hired employees less and less every year.

that's because a job with apple is an extremely hot commodity. if your brand equity allows you to attract top talent without having to pay top wages, you're going to lower your wages. see, also, google.

Washington state and Southern California had a booming post war aerospace industry. That raised the middle class tide to spur growth and affluence to those whose parents were simple farmers from the Midwest.

Those families were able to buy a home on a single wage-earner's paycheck. Mom stayed home and raised and socialized the kids. They spent money and supported the local economy. education was either taxpayer supported or reasonably affordable with the help o f savings bonds.

Then the '70s happened and wages started to stagnate. The low cost of fuel had jade it cheaper to import goods -- first it was cheap goods but then durable goods followed.

Due to wage stagnation the mother had to find work that ltft the TV and advertisers to raise the kids. Huh. I wonde why the rise of ADD started here...

Then the "service economy" was the mantra in the '80s. You could make more money manipulating money than making something. Deregulation of the banks caused the first S&L crisis requiring taxpayer bailouts. You think were learned anything?

In the meantime rules barring pharmaceutical companies marketing directly to consumers are lifted adding hundreds of millions of annual costs...passed on to the consumer....for drugs to treat heartburn and limp dicks. All profits go to the majority shareholders. Oh and many of the jobs went overseas too.

But by then the mide class aerospace jobs were heading overseas to boost profits for the majority shareholders. You know. The top 5%. Once booming areas in the us started to decline due to plant closings.

Seeing a trend yet?

Then the '90s ushered in the "information economy". More jobs go overseas. Consumer debt skyrockets to maintain living standards. More deregulation of the financial sector.

Wait for it.

Lending rules are loosened and a housing boom is started to the point of irrational speculation. Loans are handed out like candy to people who can't afford them but are reassured by the lender it's all going to be ok. Then the junk loans are repackaged as safe investments and flooded onto world markets upon which further investments - like pensions - are based upon.

During all of this infrastructure and maintenance investments are deferred. Roads look like third world goat paths. Bridges fall down.

Then we get into unfunded wars which we defer payment by borrowing more.

Then the "dot-com" bust happens because everyone wanted to get rich selling dogfood and greeting cards online. The expectations for growth were surreal and companies burned through capital for no other reason than they had to to appear viable. The domino effect on the subsequent investments by the new financial services sectors caused even more pensions and municipal funds to collapse.

Boeng is years delayed in its new model due to production problems trying to coordinate too many suppliers in too many countries. I wonder what would have happen if it were all built here and the wages paid stayed local longer. How much of that outsourced labor is going to circulate to the rank and file American

Then in 2007 the housing charade starts to collapse. Government if forced to inject taxpayer funds into the market to prevent it from locking up. Most are loans. It is unknown if the repayments will meet inflation of any profit made.

Then the TeaParty shows up to motivate these disaffected American workers to support candidates that would deregulate even more, reduce or eliminate the Medicare, section 8 housing, and social security they themselves subsist upon. All with the motivation of hating the black guy holding the bag of decades of corporate malfeasance they supported with their GOP votes over the last 40 years.

Which other developed country commits cannibalism at this scale? Which other country requires their children to enter 6 figure debt for their education, to spend thousands on books forcibly expired every year to feed the publishing cartels? To go bankrupt if seriously Ill if not automatically unemployed?

This country has perfected eating its own seed corn.

The feed bin is running out of patience.

/ranty rant rant

Being a retail pawn on a register is not the same as the person who developed the product in Cupertino.

Ambient: Dr._Love: lohphat gets it.

lohphat: Being a retail pawn on a register is not the same as the person who developed the product in Cupertino.

That sounds like two people who have never worked at an Apple Store. Find the busiest store in your area, sit by the genius bar for a Saturday, tell me "it's just retail"

So they're in person IT Helpdesk?

Yeah I have. And to get some things really fixed I often have to use a third party repair house because the local Scientology Store is overstocked with enthusiasm and not enough knowledge.

Next time your iTunes account is locked out just try to speak to ANYONE about it.

Dr._Love:
And so on, until people have to murder the rich just to have enough money to buy bread. This is of greater concern than whether the hordes of hipsters are buying sh*t they don't need from people making $9 an hour vs. $17 w/benefits.

This is the final result. Reduction of EVERY job to the point of arbitrage to the lowest provider.

I had a surgeon tell me with a straight face that his industry is protected -- until I showed him a website for non-emergency surgery clinic in the Philippines which some insurance carriers cover because it's *cheaper* to send you there than to have it done in the US.

Many legal firms are outsourcing paralegal work.

No one is safe.

In the end only hourly to the lowest bidder labor will be left.

Benefits?

How quaint.