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  
•       •       •

16521 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 04:27:09 PM

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.
 
2011-04-05 04:28:21 PM

Rakishi: 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?


I call bullshiat on those "improvements" - they're no more real than a Potemkin village. The governments are no less corrupt or despotic; they just show a bit of bling to the West and bend over backwards to take more jobs from the West.

Just because a company town asks for a government security action to defend its "property" does not make the government security action clean. But that is what you support, the same despotism with a new face. Unfortunately for you, people see through those "improvements". You and your kind are the people so jealous of the US, that your only belief in the markets is to tear down the US to some lower global standard of squalor.

Go to some Third World country, renounce your citizenship in whatever First World country you came from, and stay there. If the improvements are so real and good, you will have no problem enjoying them as a full citizen of said country. Or do you only wish to share in their pleasure but not their pain?
 
2011-04-05 04:28:44 PM

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?
 
2011-04-05 04:30:47 PM

Another Government Employee: WaltzingMathilda: dletter: 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.

Which was my point... hey, you have the money to give your CEOs insane perks and pay AND give all of your other employees more than fair compensation, then, have at it. But, if you are making excuses for 1,000s of layoffs and pay freezes while doing this, then people are going "WTF".

what if demand does not justify having all those extra employees and the CEO makes the difficult choice of saving the company billions by downsizing its labor force, and so they give him a chunk of those savings?

private business do not owe people jobs. they owe their owners a return on their investment.

But are they really getting a good marginal rate of return by paying the CEO vs investing the funds in something that makes the business better in the long run?

You can only eat your seed corn so long.


one could look at rewarding the CEO as an investment, otherwise what keeps him from moving on to another company, providing them with savings

/just saying a company that looks at their human capital as an investment are on the right track
 
2011-04-05 04:33:38 PM

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.

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.


But don't use words like "greed, "selfishness" and "economic injustice" when criticizing multimillionaires who decide to shift jobs to countries where they can pay their workers below subsistence wages. Don't use those words to describe the CEOs of companies that illegally hire people and have them working in horrific conditions, while having the company pay tens of thousands of dollars to mow the CEOs lawn. That's just hateful.
 
2011-04-05 04:33:56 PM

WaltzingMathilda: 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.


You apparently don't know the concept of selling one's soul to a company town? Or incurring enough debt to a town, that your wages are outmatched by your debts.

Not everyone has had your ascended existence, where company towns were not part of your family's history. That is, I'm seeing stuff happen in Third World countries that has not happened for 3-4 generations in mine, save for coal mining country.

But then you don't care, since you've received your two pieces of silver and thus you are happy for it.
 
2011-04-05 04:34:48 PM

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?
 
2011-04-05 04:35:24 PM

allthebetter: one could look at rewarding the CEO as an investment, otherwise what keeps him from moving on to another company, providing them with savings


Then why is it not good to treat the workers in the same manner? At one time, companies made a handy profit and treated the workers with a respect not seen in a generation.
 
2011-04-05 04:41:35 PM

sethstorm: I call bullshiat on those "improvements" - they're no more real than a Potemkin village. The governments are no less corrupt or despotic; they just show a bit of bling to the West and bend over backwards to take more jobs from the West.


Yes, yes, you've made it abundantly clear already that you have no idea what you're talking about. It's getting repetitive and boring.

Just because a company town asks for a government security action to defend its "property" does not make the government security action clean. But that is what you support, the same despotism with a new face. Unfortunately for you, people see through those "improvements". You and your kind are the people so jealous of the US, that your only belief in the markets is to tear down the US to some lower global standard of squalor.

In other words you've failed at achieving success in life and are blaming everyone else irrationally, *yawn*. Go blame your fellow Americans for shopping at Walmart and caring about nothing but saving a few dollars.

Go to some Third World country, renounce your citizenship in whatever First World country you came from, and stay there. If the improvements are so real and good, you will have no problem enjoying them as a full citizen of said country. Or do you only wish to share in their pleasure but not their pain?

Hmmm? That I'm claiming the third world is improving somehow makes me un-American? Sorry but unlike you I have no need to delude myself or ignore reality when thinking about the world.
 
2011-04-05 04:41:48 PM

sethstorm: Then why is it not good to treat the workers in the same manner? At one time, companies made a handy profit and treated the workers with a respect not seen in a generation.


That's an alien concept to many of our "best and brightest"; for them, it would be like rewarding a stapler for five years of faithful service or setting up a pension fund for the copier machine.
 
2011-04-05 04:53:25 PM

Derwood: Cletus C.: Every American should get these kinds of perks. And it's the government's job to make sure we do.

Don't you get itchy throwing out all these straw men?


Achievement and success should be punished, not rewarded.

To Darren: Obviously not.
 
2011-04-05 04:55:14 PM

sethstorm: allthebetter: one could look at rewarding the CEO as an investment, otherwise what keeps him from moving on to another company, providing them with savings

Then why is it not good to treat the workers in the same manner? At one time, companies made a handy profit and treated the workers with a respect not seen in a generation.


I think it is more a proportional thing, employees tend to get rewarded on a much smaller scale since their contribution does not affect profits as much. I am not saying that CEOs are not over compendating, I think they are a bit, just like professional athletes. However, a CEOs decision could cost the company millions...you typically do not see that kind of risk in the lower levels of a company.
 
2011-04-05 04:57:48 PM

stranger things have happened: www.theyrule.net


Yikes. You can get lost in that site. There are some insanely powerful people whose names I'd never heard before.
 
2011-04-05 04:59:42 PM

allthebetter: sethstorm: allthebetter: one could look at rewarding the CEO as an investment, otherwise what keeps him from moving on to another company, providing them with savings

Then why is it not good to treat the workers in the same manner? At one time, companies made a handy profit and treated the workers with a respect not seen in a generation.

I think it is more a proportional thing, employees tend to get rewarded on a much smaller scale since their contribution does not affect profits as much. I am not saying that CEOs are not over compendating, I think they are a bit, just like professional athletes. However, a CEOs decision could cost the company millions...you typically do not see that kind of risk in the lower levels of a company.


Risk to the share holder, not the CEO. He/She will still get their huge paychecks, bonuses and perks, and possibly even a nice lump of cash to go away when they have done enough damage.
 
2011-04-05 05:01:31 PM
White collar slavery: I'm living it, but I ain't loving it.
 
2011-04-05 05:05:11 PM

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.
 
2011-04-05 05:05:49 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: allthebetter: sethstorm: allthebetter: one could look at rewarding the CEO as an investment, otherwise what keeps him from moving on to another company, providing them with savings

Then why is it not good to treat the workers in the same manner? At one time, companies made a handy profit and treated the workers with a respect not seen in a generation.

I think it is more a proportional thing, employees tend to get rewarded on a much smaller scale since their contribution does not affect profits as much. I am not saying that CEOs are not over compendating, I think they are a bit, just like professional athletes. However, a CEOs decision could cost the company millions...you typically do not see that kind of risk in the lower levels of a company.

Risk to the share holder, not the CEO. He/She will still get their huge paychecks, bonuses and perks, and possibly even a nice lump of cash to go away when they have done enough damage.


Oh sure, I agree with that it is not the CEO taking the risk personally. you are right on that. But it is through the CEO that a shareholder's value can be raised or lowered more significantly than through a lower level employee. The reason they recieve a substantial amount even when they leave is due to contracts.

I look at these CEOs the same way I look at the riders that musicians throw into their contracts; if they can get someone else to give them what they want then why not? Wouldn't this atrocity be more the fault of the company lawyers who write up the contracts without placing lack of performance clauses or poor performance clauses?
 
2011-04-05 05:10:35 PM

allthebetter: Philip Francis Queeg: allthebetter: sethstorm: allthebetter: one could look at rewarding the CEO as an investment, otherwise what keeps him from moving on to another company, providing them with savings

Then why is it not good to treat the workers in the same manner? At one time, companies made a handy profit and treated the workers with a respect not seen in a generation.

I think it is more a proportional thing, employees tend to get rewarded on a much smaller scale since their contribution does not affect profits as much. I am not saying that CEOs are not over compendating, I think they are a bit, just like professional athletes. However, a CEOs decision could cost the company millions...you typically do not see that kind of risk in the lower levels of a company.

Risk to the share holder, not the CEO. He/She will still get their huge paychecks, bonuses and perks, and possibly even a nice lump of cash to go away when they have done enough damage.

Oh sure, I agree with that it is not the CEO taking the risk personally. you are right on that. But it is through the CEO that a shareholder's value can be raised or lowered more significantly than through a lower level employee. The reason they recieve a substantial amount even when they leave is due to contracts.

I look at these CEOs the same way I look at the riders that musicians throw into their contracts; if they can get someone else to give them what they want then why not? Wouldn't this atrocity be more the fault of the company lawyers who write up the contracts without placing lack of performance clauses or poor performance clauses?


It's the fault of the board who agrees to those ridiculous contracts. Of course many of those board members are executives at other companies where they have equally ridiculous contracts. It is in their interest for an atrocity of a contract to be the standard. Corporate governance is pretty much a joke these days. The notion that the Board or executives have the interest of the shareholders at heart at most companies is laughable.
 
2011-04-05 05:16:27 PM

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.
 
2011-04-05 05:23:52 PM

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.
 
2011-04-05 05:24:44 PM

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?
 
2011-04-05 05:25:20 PM

Cletus C.: Derwood: Cletus C.: Every American should get these kinds of perks. And it's the government's job to make sure we do.

Don't you get itchy throwing out all these straw men?

Achievement and success should be punished, not rewarded.

To Darren: Obviously not.


Thanks for clearing up that you don't know what a straw man is.
 
2011-04-05 05:27:47 PM

Rakishi: sethstorm: I call bullshiat on those "improvements" - they're no more real than a Potemkin village. The governments are no less corrupt or despotic; they just show a bit of bling to the West and bend over backwards to take more jobs from the West.

Yes, yes, you've made it abundantly clear already that you have no idea what you're talking about. It's getting repetitive and boring.

In other words you've failed at achieving success in life and are blaming everyone else irrationally, *yawn*. Go blame your fellow Americans for shopping at Walmart and caring about nothing but saving a few dollars.

Hmmm? That I'm claiming the third world is improving somehow makes me un-American? Sorry but unlike you I have no need to delude myself or ignore reality when thinking about the world.


Yes, and with no apologies to be given. For the "improvements" you talk about go to the very few, at the cost of the First World. You want to make sure that the Third World nations "improve", and that the US should bow before the world in reparation for kicking too many countries' arses. Grab your two pieces of silver, denounce your First World country's citizenship, and become a part of what you love so much - the despotic countries you support.


The only people who benefit from offshoring are the people who make the deals; workers in both First and Third World countries get the shaft.
 
2011-04-05 05:29:16 PM
Hmm. It's interested how the uneducated and lower-class Americans of this thread complain about the educated and powerful.

Seriously, get over it, go back to school, and quit biatching about where your laziness has left you.
 
2011-04-05 05:30:05 PM

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.


Yeah, but the millionaire will not be him.

I wish you guys would wise up to the fact that we're talking about inevitable societal forces here.

Concentration of wealth reaches a certain tipping point and then the civilization collapses.

"There's your historical inevitability."

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2011-04-05 05:34:43 PM

Tricky Chicken: "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.


"I have a serious illness, which prevents me from working and drained the family savings after costing us our home. I cannot get health insurance since it's now considered a preexisting condition. My husband died suddenly shortly after my illness onset and when our youngest was only 2. I would really like to feed our 2 kids so they can; 'choose to pay attention in school, choose not to have sex and have kids, choose to study instead of laying around, choose to avoid drugs.' But I guess your solution is that my children starve so that they cannot pay attention in school. Thanks asshole."

not all poor people choose to be poor. if you think you can really pull yourself by your bootstraps you're delusional. inter-class mobility has declined in america. and what if they were wrongly convicted? and are you seriously implying that the mistakes of 16 year-old should haunt that person for life? or that no one is in jail wrongly? or that the cops haven't railroaded some teenagers at some put?

/the productivity to wage gap is increasing, which is simple legalized theft by the affluent.
 
2011-04-05 05:37:28 PM
America the beautiful..


The upper, middle, and lower class split a pizza (10 pieces). The rich get 7 pieces and the middle and lower class get to split 3 pieces.

And when the bill comes the rich only pay a third.

/The revolution is near
 
2011-04-05 05:41:59 PM

cyclebiff: Hmm. It's interested how the uneducated and lower-class Americans of this thread complain about the educated and powerful.

Seriously, get over it, go back to school, and quit biatching about where your laziness has left you.


The truth is that it's happening to the educated as well. Perhaps you haven't learned that it will harm you, and people won't be the least bit sorry for ignoring the obvious warnings. Your kind has existed since the 1980's, saying the same message, then realizing the error of their ways once they are out of work.

If it takes another FDR to smack businesses in their place, I will welcome them. If it takes another Andrew Jackson to smite the banks, I will welcome them as well. If you want to sell the country out or make it more "global", you will find yourself without a place in Hell, Heaven, Earth, or Purgatory.
 
2011-04-05 05:43:31 PM

Derwood: Cletus C.: Derwood: Cletus C.: Every American should get these kinds of perks. And it's the government's job to make sure we do.

Don't you get itchy throwing out all these straw men?

Achievement and success should be punished, not rewarded.

To Darren: Obviously not.

Thanks for clearing up that you don't know what a straw man is.


I think I know what a straw man is, Darwin. As does Ray Bolger.
 
2011-04-05 05:51:09 PM
When companies came for the unions in the private sector, I did not speak because I was not a part of a union.
When Reagan came for the air traffic controllers, I did not speak because I was not an air traffic controller.
When companies sent manufacturing offshore, I did not speak because I was not without skill.
When companies organized to make the final stab against the remaining unions, I did not speak because I was employed in the private sector.
When companies spoke of making everything global, there was nobody left to speak.
 
2011-04-05 06:04:52 PM

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?
 
2011-04-05 06:05:14 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: allthebetter: Philip Francis Queeg: allthebetter:

It's the fault of the board who agrees to those ridiculous contracts. Of course many of those board members are executives at other companies where they have equally ridiculous contracts. It is in their interest for an atrocity of a contract to be the standard. Corporate governance is pretty much a joke these days. The notion that the Board or executives have the interest of the shareholders at heart at most companies is laughable.


I can agree with that, but then again who appoints the board members? they appoint them knowing full well the ludicrous contracts, and as long as they continue to allow them they will exist. But only a fool would take less for services if someone is offering you more, unless you are trying to make some kind of philanthropic statement or something.
 
2011-04-05 06:12:31 PM

allthebetter: Philip Francis Queeg: allthebetter: Philip Francis Queeg: allthebetter:

It's the fault of the board who agrees to those ridiculous contracts. Of course many of those board members are executives at other companies where they have equally ridiculous contracts. It is in their interest for an atrocity of a contract to be the standard. Corporate governance is pretty much a joke these days. The notion that the Board or executives have the interest of the shareholders at heart at most companies is laughable.

I can agree with that, but then again who appoints the board members? they appoint them knowing full well the ludicrous contracts, and as long as they continue to allow them they will exist. But only a fool would take less for services if someone is offering you more, unless you are trying to make some kind of philanthropic statement or something.


Are you laboring under the assumption that these pay levels, and especially these ridiculous perks weren't asked for by the executives? Do you think the Tyson board offered to mow his lawn one day out of the blue?

I guess Warren Buffett is a fool in your opinion.
 
2011-04-05 06:23:31 PM

imgod2u: 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?


QFT.

Companies have managed to find some way to make massive profits and still have some sort of moral fiber to them. When people see that disappear, problems occur. In order to solve the problem, said people will find any way possible to restore this morality, even if it is through legislative force.

What people would prefer is that said force does not have to happen, and that companies would find this balance voluntarily. However, the last 30+ years, this balance has become rare. In the next 30, it may be nonexistent.

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.
 
2011-04-05 06:25:54 PM

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.
 
2011-04-05 06:27:29 PM

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.
 
2011-04-05 06:28:11 PM

Philip Francis Queeg:

Are you laboring under the assumption that these pay levels, and especially these ridiculous perks weren't asked for by the executives? Do you think the Tyson board offered to mow his lawn one day out of the blue?

I guess Warren Buffett is a fool in your opinion.



I agree with you that it is the executives making these requests, but it is the board, and by extension the shareholder, that are agreeing to them. However, from a shareholder perspective, if they can increase profit by $100m, then $200,000 for cleaning services is a good investment to keep the CEO with the company. People tend to forget that Corporations are not in existence to give us jobs, they are in existence to make money.

and Warren Buffet is kind of a fool, simply because he gave up his family life to focus on his career, and here now he doesn't share the majority of the fruits of his labor with his family, who had to deal with the sacrifice...but that is another story.
 
2011-04-05 06:32:14 PM

Githerax: Flying Cash Cow

Company: Apple Computer (Nasdaq: AAPL - News)
Perk recipient: Steve Jobs

In 1999, Steven Jobs was "interim CEO" of Apple Computer, having returned in 1997 to the then-struggling company that had fired him a decade earlier. Directors were so grateful for his leadership and his refusal to accept any cash pay -- he still works for $1 annually -- that they gave him a plane.

A $90-million Gulfstream V is a pretty good perk. It became even better in 2002, when the Cupertino, Cal., company started reimbursing Jobs whenever he used his plane on company business. In 2002, Apple paid $1.1 million in flight-cost reimbursements for his use for the past two years.

I have no problem with this. Steve Jobs has made Apple a huge success.




Interestingly enough, Apple is paying its newly hired employees less and less every year.
 
2011-04-05 06:35:01 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?


The race to the bottom is already happening, just give it a little more time.
 
2011-04-05 06:36:32 PM

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.
 
2011-04-05 06:37:24 PM

Cletus C.: Derwood: Cletus C.: Derwood: Cletus C.: Every American should get these kinds of perks. And it's the government's job to make sure we do.

Don't you get itchy throwing out all these straw men?

Achievement and success should be punished, not rewarded.

To Darren: Obviously not.

Thanks for clearing up that you don't know what a straw man is.

I think I know what a straw man is, Darwin. As does Ray Bolger.


So you admit you were just trolling then? Glad we cleared that up
 
2011-04-05 06:38:17 PM
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
 
2011-04-05 06:39:47 PM

thomps: 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.


I can't comment on corporate, I don't know what their pay structure is like. I was talking about retail. Without their hard work, Apple wouldn't be were it is today, especially regarding things like the iPhone and iPad.
 
2011-04-05 06:45:13 PM
Being a retail pawn on a register is not the same as the person who developed the product in Cupertino.
 
2011-04-05 06:45:48 PM
lohphat gets it.
 
2011-04-05 06:54:10 PM

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"
 
2011-04-05 06:59:54 PM

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.
 
2011-04-05 07:04:02 PM

lohphat: 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.


You need to ask one of the more experienced people. But this is exactly my point. Well qualified people used to work there, but now, as they cut wages they only attract kool-aid drinkers, not techs.
 
2011-04-05 07:22:05 PM
lohphat
This country has perfected eating its own seed corn.

This is the post I was endorsing.

And for the record you're off-point in general, Ambient.
Apple's revenue engine isn't the problem - it's the ever-spiraling wealth tornado sucking the lower 80% dry.

Once they are dry, it'll be the 80-90th percentile they suck from next.

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.
 
2011-04-05 07:38:33 PM

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.
 
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 »






Report