Politics

[Irish Houstonian]

...They earn obscene salaries because they're (1) founders of the company, and/or (2) seen as essential by the Board of Directors and the Compensation Committee to maintaining the growth of the company, not because of any real benefit they're providing to society as a whole, (other than to the employees of the company, its shareholders, its customers, and the government as a taxpayer).

FIFY

 

[Whiskeyjack]

"Income inequality" doesn't scare me. I'd rather have a chance at greatness than guaranteed mediocrity.

Regardless of your personal risk preference, it should scare you based on its political implications alone. Massive income inequality is a hallmark of feudalism; I have strong doubts that America can maintain its integrity as a liberal democracy unless the current trend is somehow slowed and reversed.

And based on what little I know about you, you're no doubt correct that our current system is more beneficial for you than most of the alternatives on offer. Unrestrained capitalism naturally redounds the benefit of those who have capital, and your income is likely in the top 25% for the nation; you're basically already on the mountain, so to speak, and it won't be very difficult for you climb higher based on the competitive advantages you enjoy.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/QPKKQnijnsM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

But what about the vast majority of your countrymen who dwell in the valley beneath you, with no economic security and no real chance to build wealth? Is this a just distribution? Is this even sustainable?

Our current system of economic liberalism is a dangerous philosophy, particularly for those who profess to be Christian. There's a strong temptation to equate economic success with moral superiority; and by the same token, to view the poor and disadvantaged as morally deficient in some way. So if you're ready to admit that you prefer the current system simply because it works to your advantage, then I can't take too much exception to your stance-- ruthlessly self-interested, but honest at least. But I don't think you can suggest that the current distribution is just.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

FIFY

I think you misunderstood my post. I was addressing wizard's contention that corporate executives provide an indispensable service to the society, which justifies an outrageous salary on moral grounds. CEOs make a ton of money because: (1) their skills are very scarce; (2) demand for such skills is high; and (3) those skills are needed by the very wealthy. None of those factors imply that income inequality is somehow just, or that a CEO is somehow morally superior to the lowest paid janitor in his company simply because his salary is 400x larger.

 

[Ndaccountant]

With lower and middle class wealth stagnant or worse over the last decade, and income inequality growing rapidly since the Great Recession, the "trickle down" justification for outrageous executive compensation is weaker than ever. They earn obscene salaries because they're crucial to maintaining the growth of stock portfolios for the wealthy, not because of any real benefit they're providing to society as a whole.

First off, let me begin that I am not arguing the soundness of policy or whether or not people were sold a false bill of goods, just pointing out the counter argument here.

I think there has been trickle down. It just so happens, that the low point wasn't American citizens. The poverty rate in India is at an all time low and China has halved the poverty rate on numerous occasions since 1980. On a worldwide scale, poverty since 1990 was halved.

I can only speak from my experiences, but the growth of China's middle class, GDP and strengthening currency, has made it so China is no longer the Slam Dunk lowest cost producer. My company (and specifically, the products I help manage) have started to bring back to the US with the goal of aligning consumption & production. This has been due mostly to rise in transportation, inventory purposes & more competitive input costs in the US. I am not sure the situation, moving forward, is as dire as some in the political world (both sides) lead us to believe.

In terms of justification, it is true it is based on stock gains and more often than not, stock is not equally distributed.

 

[Buster Bluth]

"Income inequality" doesn't scare me.

It should. Look at third world countries.

I'd rather have a chance at greatness than guaranteed mediocrity.

There are only two options? News to me.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I think there has been trickle down. It just so happens, that the low point wasn't American citizens. The poverty rate in India is at an all time low and China has halved the poverty rate on numerous occasions since 1980. On a worldwide scale, poverty since 1990 was halved.

I don't think that's how it is supposed to work for the 99%.

I can only speak from my experiences, but the growth of China's middle class, GDP and strengthening currency, has made it so China is no longer the Slam Dunk lowest cost producer. My company (and specifically, the products I help manage) have started to bring back to the US with the goal of aligning consumption & production. This has been due mostly to rise in transportation, inventory purposes & more competitive input costs in the US. I am not sure the situation, moving forward, is as dire as some in the political world (both sides) lead us to believe.

In terms of justification, it is true it is based on stock gains and more often than not, stock is not equally distributed.

A lot of that this reshoring due to manufacturing automation making huge strides in the last five years or so, too. I remember reading recently about a manufacturing boom that is basically silent because the jobs didn't come with it. Automation has beaten the Chinese worker, but that doesn't mean it's good for the American people per se.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I think you misunderstood my post. I was addressing wizard's contention that corporate executives provide an indispensable service to the society, which justifies an outrageous salary on moral grounds. CEOs make a ton of money because: (1) their skills are very scarce; (2) demand for such skills is high; and (3) those skills are needed by the very wealthy. None of those factors imply that income inequality is somehow just, or that a CEO is somehow morally superior to the lowest paid janitor in his company simply because his salary is 400x larger.

Yep, this.

Also worth pointing out that a tax raise on a CEO does not, at all, impact the company. His job is to steer the ship, so to speak, and him taking home less money does not hurt his ability to do that.

I'm so sick of the GOP touting them all as "job creations" and watching millions of Republicans fall in line with it. They do not create jobs with their personal wealth.

I think the "other side" has a very valid point that in the age of a global economy, if an American corporation isn't willing to pay X amount, he will move to another country to get it, no? If GM doesn't want to pay their CEP X, he'll try and get it from BMW.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I think there has been trickle down. It just so happens, that the low point wasn't American citizens. The poverty rate in India is at an all time low and China has halved the poverty rate on numerous occasions since 1980. On a worldwide scale, poverty since 1990 was halved.

That's a good point, but from what I've read, the vast majority of those who have been pulled out of poverty are in China. And how much of that should be attributed to the Chinese government finally halting decades of incredibly harmful policies v. the American-led "Washington Consensus" which created a globalized marketplace in which China could catch up so quickly to the position it should have been in since the industrial revolution? I'm inclined to give the US credit for pushing globalism, which explains the pace of China's development, but not the phenomenon itself.

And, of course, the fact that our policies are benefiting the Chinese is cold comfort to those at the bottom of the ladder here in the States. But from a moral perspective, it definitely bears mentioning.

In terms of justification, it is true it is based on stock gains and more often than not, stock is not equally distributed.

That's mostly what I was getting at.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I don't think that's how it is supposed to work for the 99%.




A lot of that this reshoring due to manufacturing automation making huge strides in the last five years or so, too. I remember reading recently about a manufacturing boom that is basically silent because the jobs didn't come with it. Automation has beaten the Chinese worker, but that doesn't mean it's good for the American people per se.

Again, can only speak about my personal experience, but you are more wrong then right, thought it really is 55/45.

The fact of the matter for me is that we have large product. You can only automate so much of it (which was really done in the 80's and 90's for us) and then you have everything else. When we move production back to the US, jobs come with it. It might not be the same number of jobs that were around in 1970, but don't diminish the change either.

 

[wizards8507]

And based on what little I know about you, you're no doubt correct that our current system is more beneficial for you than most of the alternatives on offer. Unrestrained capitalism naturally redounds the benefit of those who have capital, and your income is likely in the top 5% for the nation; you're basically already on the mountain, so to speak, and it won't be very difficult for you climb higher based on the competitive advantages you enjoy.

Sorry, what? Where did you get that my income is in the top 5% of the nation? Since you brought it up, I'll say that I'm probably in the top 1% of my age group, but I'm 24 and my generation is a bunch of degenerates so that's not saying much. My father is an army veteran and a factory worker. My mother works as a department manager (non-faculty) at a university. To any extent that I'm "on the mountain," I got there on my own (financially, at least... not discounting the value of love and support, etc.)

 

[Irish Houstonian]

I think you misunderstood my post. I was addressing wizard's contention that corporate executives provide an indispensable service to the society, which justifies an outrageous salary on moral grounds. CEOs make a ton of money because: (1) their skills are very scarce; (2) demand for such skills is high; and (3) those skills are needed by the very wealthy. None of those factors imply that income inequality is somehow just, or that a CEO is somehow morally superior to the lowest paid janitor in his company simply because his salary is 400x larger.

Fair enough. I mean, not many people in the labor force are priests or nuns, so not many ordinary workers have any moral superiority over anyone else. It's just important that people [cough] Occupy Wall Street [cough] begin to realize how CEO's actually get paid. It's not that "the system" is "unjust". Rather, a Compensation Committee of a mutli-billion dollar company, elected by shareholders, has determined that giving their CEO 1% of the Company is a good way to attract, motivate and retain a top CEO. And mathematically, in terms of the value created for the shareholders, they're right.

Like you point out, if lots of people were great CEO's, then this going-rate wouldn't be so high. Unfortunately for everyone in our economy, there just aren't that many.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Sorry, what? Where did you get that my income is in the top 5% of the nation? Since you brought it up, I'll say that I'm probably in the top 1% of my age group, but I'm 24 and my generation is a bunch of degenerates so that's not saying much. My father is an army veteran and a factory worker. My mother works as a department manager (non-faculty) at a university. To any extent that I'm "on the mountain," I got there on my own (financially, at least... not discounting the value of love and support, etc.)

I left off a "2" there (unless you're doing significantly better than I assumed.) Still, top 25% in American puts you in the top 5% (probably higher) in the world, and the top fraction of 1% from a historical perspective. My point was simply that as a young successful professional, you're far better positioned to take advantage of the current system than most, so "it works for me" isn't a very compelling argument.

And I didn't mean to imply that you're a trust fund baby. But anyone who ends up attending Notre Dame for undergrad is very very lucky in the big scheme of things.

 

[DillonHall]

You can be the most conservative person in the world, but you're blind if you don't realize that many CEOs and other corporate executives earn way more than they should.

 

[wizards8507]

I left off a "2" there (unless you're doing significantly better than I assumed.) Still, top 25% in American puts you in the top 5% (probably higher) in the world, and the top fraction of 1% from a historical perspective. My point was simply that as a young successful professional, you're far better positioned to take advantage of the current system than most, so "it works for me" isn't a very compelling argument.

But that's just it. I wasn't born a young successful professional. I got here as a sum product of the choices I've made to this point. Like you say below, I'm not a "trust fund baby" with a silver spoon in my mouth. I'm not saying "it works" because it's great for a successful young professional. I'm saying "it works" because it allowed the son of a factory worker to become a successful young professional.

And I didn't mean to imply that you're a trust fund baby. But anyone who ends up attending Notre Dame for undergrad is very very lucky in the big scheme of things.

I guess you put more value on "luck" than I do. I went to Notre Dame because I was studying for the SAT while my friends were getting high under the bleachers. I went to Notre Dame because I joined the band, started the Student Senate, and lettered in two sports. Those things weren't "luck." They were my choices, and choices have consequences.

 

[Buster Bluth]

but I'm 24 and my generation is a bunch of degenerates

And now I see how such a worldview is possible.

 

[wizards8507]

And now I see how such a worldview is possible.

There it is. Whiskey and I were having an intelligent disagreement and then Buster stops by with a gem.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Looks like the Plains are killing it. The West/Southwest, not so much.

 

[ACamp1900]

Damned fly over country...

 

[ACamp1900]

Also, are these numbers adjusted to include those the gov. just looks at as dead because they can no longer collect a check? I personally find it hard to believe Cali's is that low...

 

[wizards8507]

Looks like the Plains are killing it. The West/Southwest, not so much.

Damned fly over country...

Interesting that the four worst states are basically "undocumented worker" central. Imagine if those rates actually COUNTED those individuals... It would be even worse.

 

[Cackalacky]

Wizards8507,
If you would tone down your myopic views a bit, the discussion may proceed a little better. Probably recognizing that not everyone is in fact "you" would be a great start.

 

[ACamp1900]

Interesting that the four worst states are basically "undocumented worker" central. Imagine if those rates actually COUNTED those individuals... It would be even worse.

idk.. unless I miss your point... So Cal has just as much of an illegal labor force as anyone...

 

[ACamp1900]

Wizards8507,
If you would tone down your myopic views a bit, the discussion may proceed a little better. Probably recognizing that not everyone is in fact "you" would be a great start.

He can't help it... it's not like the guy has free will or anything...

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Also, are these numbers adjusted to include those the gov. just looks at as dead because they can no longer collect a check? I personally find it hard to believe Cali's is that low...

Yeah, those people aren't counted. "Underemployment" is just [Unemployed + Part-Time-Looking-For-More]

 

[Cackalacky]

Also, are these numbers adjusted to include those the gov. just looks at as dead because they can no longer collect a check? I personally find it hard to believe Cali's is that low...

South Carolina is one of the biggest government welfare recipients. We receive a ton of financial aid from.gov but you will never hear Senator's Graham, Scott, or Underwood say as much.

 

[wizards8507]

If you would tone down your myopic views a bit, the discussion may proceed a little better. Probably recognizing that not everyone is in fact "you" would be a great start.

The discussion was going swimmingly, I thought. Whiskey and I were disagreeing, but civilly. HE brought my MY personal financial situation so I responded in kind. I didn't bring up myself, but I responded to those personal issues that he raised.

I'm fine that he did, but it's bullshit to suggest that I'm the one making this about "me". Buster then implied that I'm not fit to comment on anything because I'm too young and therefore must know nothing.

 

[ACamp1900]

Yeah, those people aren't counted. "Underemployment" is just [Unemployed + Part-Time-Looking-For-More]

Ok... where is the national rate right now if the lowest state in the union is at 10%...

 

[Cackalacky]

He can't help it... it's not like the guy has free will or anything...

This is soooooooooooooo true. But we can choose to adhere to free won't.

 

[ACamp1900]

I'm fine that he did, but it's bullshit to suggest that I'm the one making this about "me". Buster then implied that I'm not fit to comment on anything because I'm too young and therefore must know nothing.

Wait, he did??? I missed that, and if he did, isn't he younger than you? Pretty sure.

 

[wizards8507]

idk.. unless I miss your point... So Cal has just as much of an illegal labor force as anyone...

I think you did miss my point. In that list, California has the highest underemployment rate at 20-something percent. If they counted "undocumented workers" in that statistic, it would be even higher and make Cali look even worse.