The Rich Get Richer

[Shwa]

And interesting article in CNN here about the 20 biggest CEO earners after the all the bailout brouhaha. Some very interesting facts contained therein:

20 biggest CEO pay windfalls

And of course a brief about the growing disparity between CEO & worker pay, even though the gap is being ever so slightly closed.

CEO, worker pay gap widening

Is this gap ethical?

[eyeball]

Is this gap ethical?

It's a dangerous threat to the well being of society. As far as I'm concerned narrowing this gap should rank higher in importance than reining in inflation.

[M.Dancer]

Is this gap ethical?

Of course it is. Workers and CEO both agree to what they are paid. Workers and CEOs are free to find other employment if they are dissatistfied.

[maple_leafs182]

Of course the rich are getting richer, the game is rigged.

[DFCaper]

It's a dangerous threat to the well being of society. As far as I'm concerned narrowing this gap should rank higher in importance than reining in inflation.

I agree with this. Large companies CEO do what ever it takes to get a quick bonus. No concern for the long termviability of the company. They definitely don't run companies like an owner would. I have no problem with a company owner making tonnes of cash when times are good, as they lose it when times are bad. Business' now are run by people who seem to do well either way. And that's why I think most have failed recently.

As much as I loath the CAW, the Execs are what screwed up the Auto Industry.

[Topaz]

Of course it is. Workers and CEO both agree to what they are paid. Workers and CEOs are free to find other employment if they are dissatistfied.

There is some differences, a CEO has never been told take this or leave, while workers have to fighting for every penny they earn. I bet if there was a poll taken across this country you would lose on your view.

[M.Dancer]

There is some differences, a CEO has never been told take this or leave....

What a nonsensical comment..compensation packages for management are always argued about, discussed,voted on, accepted or rejected...executives walk all the time for better opportunities.

I bet if there was a poll taken across this country you would lose on your view.

I bet if you framed the question most would be confused.

Edited May 28, 2010 by M.Dancer

[myata]

We had a discussion some time back in which we came to conclusion that while communism is really bad taking care of the small picture, capitalism isn't great addressing the big one. The ideal system that would address both sides of human equation equally well is still escaping us.

[Oleg Bach]

The rich are habitualists. Greed is a form of mental illness- Like a pig that eats, vomits and shits, all at the same time. The rich get more poor the higher they go.

[Jack Weber]

Of course it is. Workers and CEO both agree to what they are paid. Workers and CEOs are free to find other employment if they are dissatistfied.

Wow...

Do you work for the NAM or the Cato Institute?

[Moonlight Graham]

We had a discussion some time back in which we came to conclusion that while communism is really bad taking care of the small picture, capitalism isn't great addressing the big one. The ideal system that would address both sides of human equation equally well is still escaping us.

Well, i think that system is called capitalism with socialist elements, which exists in pretty much every capitalist country. However, the taxing of the wealthy isn't done enough while the working poor suffer. Canada has a lot of social programs and high enough taxes, but taxing the rich and large businesses too much is detrimental because it drives business and brain-power away from the country (and the case is similar for many other countries).

If Canada existed in a bubble we could do whatever we wanted, but unfortunately we must compete and trade in a global capitalist economy in an increasingly globalized world. This is one of the reasons why USSR and other communist countries collapsed, as they isolated themselves the global economy and suffered some of the consequences.

Economic liberty and freedom blah blah blah. In my opinion, a few hundred million dollars is as much as any individual needs or even deserves to have. Can't afford to buy the New York Yankees without having a few partners? Cry me a river.

[eyeball]

The problem every system seems to collapse under is fundamentally the same, secrecy with the intent to deceive or in a word, corruption.

We don't let people work near a reactor without adequate shielding to protect them, and we shouldn't let people get to close to power without adequate oversight for the same reason.

[Pliny]

The problem every system seems to collapse under is fundamentally the same, secrecy with the intent to deceive or in a word, corruption.

We don't let people work near a reactor without adequate shielding to protect them, and we shouldn't let people get to close to power without adequate oversight for the same reason.

Ahh...once again I reminded of George Washington's analogy of government being like a fire. "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force. It is, like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.

What do you suppose adequate oversight is, Eyeball? They used to have some natural restrictions on their growth but they removed them and can now spend whatever they deem necessary. The taxpayers will pay it later. A little authoritarian, I'd say! Indebting future generations like that, say wot?

[Pliny]

The problem every system seems to collapse under is fundamentally the same, secrecy with the intent to deceive or in a word, corruption.

We don't let people work near a reactor without adequate shielding to protect them, and we shouldn't let people get to close to power without adequate oversight for the same reason.

Ahh...once again I reminded of George Washington's analogy of government being like a fire. "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force. It is, like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.

What do you suppose adequate oversight is, Eyeball? They used to have some natural restrictions on their growth but they removed them and can now spend whatever they deem necessary. The taxpayers will pay it later. A little authoritarian, I'd say! Indebting future generations like that, say wot?

[Shady]

We had a discussion some time back in which we came to conclusion that while communism is really bad taking care of the small picture, capitalism isn't great addressing the big one. The ideal system that would address both sides of human equation equally well is still escaping us.

It's not about equality, but the equality of opportunity. Just because two people don't earn the exact same income, doesn't mean they don't both live well. And poverty is relative. Being poor in Canada is much different than being poor in many other countries. Besides. People earn different levels of income for many reasons. Everyone has different talents, skills, interests, desires, and motivation.

[Pliny]

And interesting article in CNN here about the 20 biggest CEO earners after the all the bailout brouhaha. Some very interesting facts contained therein:

20 biggest CEO pay windfalls

And of course a brief about the growing disparity between CEO & worker pay, even though the gap is being ever so slightly closed.

CEO, worker pay gap widening

Is this gap ethical?

Capitalists are concerned about their money and socialists are concerned about their money too.

Socialists seem to focus on shortages. There is not enough of everything for everybody. Was there ever a time when there was enough for everybody? I can't recall there being a time in history and funny all the resources were there for the asking throughout most of it..It seems that focusing on other people's wealth and divesting them of it has been a social problem since day one and probably the reason we have government in the first place - I hate it when they don't do their job of protecting the sanctity of person and property and become the thing they were created to eliminate.

[eyeball]

What do you suppose adequate oversight is, Eyeball? They used to have some natural restrictions on their growth but they removed them and can now spend whatever they deem necessary. The taxpayers will pay it later. A little authoritarian, I'd say! Indebting future generations like that, say wot?

Didn't we used to have super-natural restrictions on them? As I understand it the original deal the ruled made with those doing the ruling was predicated on the relative certainty that checks against the ruler's abuse of power would be pretty much guaranteed by the watchful eye of God and His/Her priest's/priestess' power to excommunicate. This sure sounds good in theory but where's the practical application?

I advocate an inversely authoritarian approach - I'd basically wire politicians and lobbyists to the Internet so the voting public could do for itself what it was expected this so-called almighty God was supposed to be doing, which is keeping an eye on the people who are...keeping an eye things. In Orwell's parlance, the Telescreens would look the other way.

I realize the type of politicians we get now would never acquiesce to such an imposition but I think its constructive to realize what really is possible in the world of souveillance. My real hope is that independent representatives or political parties will emerge one day that really are dedicated to total transparency and volunteer to be wired up to prove it. If they really want to compete on the basis of who's really the most open and honest just show us.

I'd be willing to match their pay with that of CEO's for the imposition and invasion of privacy. I'm betting that reducing the drag that official corruption must have on the economy will create the type of wealth that could easily justify a wage hike. That said reducing the drag of official corruption might have a real impact on CEO wages. We can always live in hope.

Edited May 30, 2010 by eyeball

[dre]

My guess is that government and the wealthy will grow closer and closer and wealth will become more and more concentrated until theres no middle class and the wealthy no longer have safety in numbers.

Human society seems to be like a computer in some respects... a lot of different applications are competing for memory and hogging it and leaking it until the system becomes too corrupted to continue functioning. Then you need to REBOOT it and start fresh with all the memory unallocated.

The reboot might be a violent one similar to the French and Russian revolutions... or in a democracy it might happen as a result of the "have nots" becoming such a large demographic and voting block that a party campaigns on rebooting and wins.

[Shwa]

It's not about equality, but the equality of opportunity. Just because two people don't earn the exact same income, doesn't mean they don't both live well. And poverty is relative. Being poor in Canada is much different than being poor in many other countries. Besides. People earn different levels of income for many reasons. Everyone has different talents, skills, interests, desires, and motivation.

So do the children of labourers have the same "equality of opportunity" as the children of rich CEO's or the like?

[M.Dancer]

So do the children of labourers have the same "equality of opportunity" as the children of rich CEO's or the like?

At face value, yes. But the children of CEOs tend to have role models that infuse them with an ethic that tends to direct them to seek out opportunities, rather than one that causes them to wait for opportuinities to rise..

[Pliny]

So do the children of labourers have the same "equality of opportunity" as the children of rich CEO's or the like?

Yes. Opportunity is made it isn't happenstance.

Look at Oprah Winfrey, Michael Jackson, the myriad of sports figures in baseball, basketball and hockey making millions...Wayne Gretsky, artists, singers, actors, are they all sons of rich CEOs?

Are you thinking we should all have "equal" talents and abilities? Are you thinking of everyone getting equal pay - is that what you mean by equality of opportunity?

Granted, in America people don't mind if you are rich as much as they do in Canada - well... maybe Obama does. People like yourself seem to resent success or anyone who makes an opportunity for themselves.

Don't look now but while you are whining opportunity is passing you by. Like you, not everyone wants to work that hard to achieve riches. It seems people despise you for it anyway....Right Shwa?

In addition, it is government that is impoverishing the middle class every higher tax increase or increase in the minimum wage marginalizes more people. If the minimum wage were $20/hr there would be quite a few people unemployed. They have to reach the $20 mark slowly through inflation so that the dollar is more or less equal to the same thing over time.

Edited May 31, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

At face value, yes. But the children of CEOs tend to have role models that infuse them with an ethic that tends to direct them to seek out opportunities, rather than one that causes them to wait for opportuinities to rise..

This is true for the most part but some turn out to be dependent upon Dad. The rich don't really have the same struggles in life that make for great autobiographies. The pomp and ceremony of the idle rich may look all very nice but it's not a guarantee of a happy life and is often the opposite.

I've caught Ivanka Trump on TV a few times and she seems like she has her head screwed on right.

[M.Dancer]

This is true for the most part but some turn out to be dependent upon Dad. The rich don't really have the same struggles in life that make for great autobiographies. The pomp and ceremony of the idle rich may look all very nice but it's not a guarantee of a happy life and is often the opposite.

I've caught Ivanka Trump on TV a few times and she seems like she has her head screwed on right.

Who said anything about a happy life...?

Opportunity is no shoe in for happiness.

But whether a CEO encourages, pushes and demands his children get straight As and enter into a: law, Accounting, Medicine, Engineering, Commerce programme..etc etc...and whether the children think that being a boss is preferable to working for one is often a matter of parenting (and not of economic status).

[Pliny]

Didn't we used to have super-natural restrictions on them? As I understand it the original deal the ruled made with those doing the ruling was predicated on the relative certainty that checks against the ruler's abuse of power would be pretty much guaranteed by the watchful eye of God and His/Her priest's/priestess' power to excommunicate. This sure sounds good in theory but where's the practical application?

You got that backwards. The supernatural restrictions weren't restrictions they were recognitions of infallibility.

[Pliny]

Who said anything about a happy life...?

Sorry...yes we are talking about the equality of opportunity - happiness is not a relevant factor.

Opportunity is no shoe in for happiness.

Yeah.. Opportunity more often has to do with self-discipline and hard work.

But whether a CEO encourages, pushes and demands his children get straight As and enter into a: law, Accounting, Medicine, Engineering, Commerce programme..etc etc...and whether the children think that being a boss is preferable to working for one is often a matter of parenting (and not of economic status).

True.