Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Two question poll on an income CAP for corporate officers

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 02:38 AM
Original message
Poll question: Two question poll on an income CAP for corporate officers
Question one (and please, read these very carefully): Does America need a cap on the income of corporate officers? Assume "income" includes net per year, including stock options and benefits (benefits being anything provided to the officers by any corporation)?

Question two: Does America as it stands allow a cap on the income of corporate officers?

Explain your answer, if you will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 02:45 AM
Response to Original message
1. This is a market issue, not a matter for legislation.
If the shareholders feel the compensation is unreasonable, they can correct it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 02:51 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. that's if you think it's a good thing to not have the market regulated
But government regulation being replaced by corporate self-regulation during the past decades has only increased the wealth gap.


Wealth Distribution Statistics 1999
As reported by the United Nations Development Program

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/wealth_distribution1999.html

posted by Charles Mueller, moderator of Mueller's Poverty of Nations List (poverty-nations-subscribe@egroups.com)

* The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) reported in 1998 that the world's 225 richest people now have a combined wealth of $1 trillion. That's equal to the combined annual income of the world's 2.5 billion poorests people.

* The wealth of the three most well-to-do individuals now exceeds the combined GDP of the 48 least developed countries.
* While global GNP grew 40 percent between 1970 and 1985 (suggesting widening prosperity), the number of poor grew by 17 percent.
* Although 200 million people saw their incomes fall between 1965 and 1980, more than 1 billion people experienced a drop from 1980 to 1993.
* In sub-Saharan Africa, twenty nations remain below their per capita incomes of two decades ago while among Latin American and Caribbean countries, eighteen are below their per capita incomes of ten years ago.
* UNDP reported in 1996 that 100 countries were worse off than 15 years ago.
* Three decades ago, the people in well-to-do countries were 30 times better off than those in countries where the poorest 20 percent of the world's people live. By 1998, this gap had widened to 82 times (up from 61 times since 1996).
* In 1998, that 20 percent of the world's people living in the highest-income countries accounted for 86 percent of total private consumption expenditures while the poorest 20 percent accounted for only 1.3 percent. That's down from 2.3 percent three decades ago.
* At present, 3 billion people live on less than $2 per day while 1.3 billion get by on less than $1 per day. Seventy percent of those living on less than $1 per day are women. With global population expanding 80 million per year, World Bank President James D. Wolfensohn cautions that, unless we address "the challenge of inclusion," 30 years hence we will have 5 billion people living on less than $2 per day.
* Two billion people worldwide now suffer from anemia, including 55 million in industrial countries. Given current trends in population growth and prosperity-hoarding, three decades from now we could have a world in which 3.7 billion people are anemic.
* These related phenomena led UN development experts to observe that the world is heading toward "grotesque inequalities," concluding: "Development that perpetuates today's inequalities is neither sustainable nor worth sustaining."
* UNDP calculates that an annual 4 percent levy on the world's 225 most well-to-do people (average 1998 wealth: $4.5 billion) would suffice to provide the following essentials for all those in developing countries: adequate food, safe water and sanitation, basic education, basic health care and reproductive health care. At present, 160 of those individuals live in OECD countries; 60 reside in the United States.
* As of 1995 (the latest figures available), Federal Reserve research found that the wealth of the top one percent of Americans is greater than that of the bottom 95 percent. Three years earlier, the Fed's Survey of Consumer Finance found that the top one percent had wealth greater than the bottom 90 percent.
* From 1983-1995 only the top five percent of households saw an increase in their net worth while only the top 20 percent experienced an increase in their income.
* Wealth projections through 1997 suggest that 86 percent of stock market gains between 1989 and 1997 went to the top ten percent of households while 42 percent went to the most well-to-do one percent.
* Stock market participation is broad but remarkably shallow. Though more American adults own stocks and stock mutual funds than at any time in history, 71 percent of households own no shares at all or hold less than $2,000, including mutual funds and popular 401(k) plans.
* Adjusting for inflation, the net worth of the median American household fell 10 percent between 1989 and 1997, declining from $54,600 to $49,900. The net worth of the top one percent is now 2.4 times the combined wealth of the poorest 80 percent.
* The modest net worth of white families is 8 times that of African-Americans and 12 times that of Hispanics. The median financial wealth of African-Americans (net worth less home equity) is $200 (one percent of the $18,000 for whites) while that of Hispanics is zero.
* Between 1983 and 1995, the bottom 40 percent of households lost 80 percent of their net worth. The middle fifth lost 11 percent. By 1995, 18.5 percent of households had zero or negative net worth (an average -$5,600, down from -$3,000 in 1983).
* By 1995, the middle quintile of income-earners had only enough savings to maintain their current standard of living for 1.2 months (i.e., if they lost their jobs). That's down from 3.6 months in 1989.
* Household debt as a percentage of personal income rose from 58 percent in 1973 to an estimated 85 percent in 1997.
* In 1997, 1.4 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy. That works out to roughly 7,000 bankruptcies per hour, 8 hours a day, 5 days a week.
* Though average household income rose 10 percent between 1979 and 1994, 97 percent of that gain was claimed by the most well-to-do 20 percent.
* In 1998, weekly wages were 12 percent lower than in 1973 on an inflation-adjusted basis. Productivity rose 33 percent over that perioo. Had pay kept pace with productivity, the average hourly wage would now be $18.10, rather than $12.77. That translates into a difference in annual pay of $11,000 for a full-time, year-round worker.
* Between 1970 and 1990, the typical American worked an additional 163 hours per year. That's equivalent to adding an additional month of work per year - for the same or less pay.
* In 1996, the Census Bureau reported record-level inequality, with the top fifth of U.S. households claiming 48.2 percent of national income while the bottom fifth gets by on 3.6 percent.
* In 1973, the income of the top 20 percent of American families was 7.5 times that of the bottom 20 percent. By 1996, it was 13 times.
* Business Week reports that in 1999 top executives earned 419 times the average wage of a blue-collar worker, up from 326:1 in 1998. In 1980, the ratio was 42:1.
* In 1982, inclusion on the Forbes 400 list of richest Americans required personal wealth of $91million. The list then included 13 billionaires. By 1998, $500 million was required and the list included 189 billionaires. Note, however, that Forbes 1998 figures were based on a September 1, 1998 Dow-Jones Industrial Average of 7827. The Dow topped 10,000 in early 1999.
* The combined net worth of the Forbes 400 was $738 billion on September 1, 1998. That's up from $624 billion in 1997. That's an average one-year increase of $285 million per person. That works out to $780,000 per day or $32,500 per hour ($541 per second).
* Microsoft CEO Bill Gates has more wealth than the bottom 45 percent of American households combined.
* Spending on luxury goods grew by 21 percent from 1995 to 1996 while overall merchandise sales grew only 5 percent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 02:59 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. So, what's your solution?
An artificial cap on corporate officers' earnings?


Changing the tax structure is a valid means to deal with the wealth gap. Arbitrary wage caps are not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 06:08 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. Do you agree that not regulating the market and wages is not a solution?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #11
23. No. The market and wages are supposed to be self-regulating.
That's the nature of business.

What type of regulation would you consider appropriate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #23
28. "supposed to be"? says who?
The nature of business is to try and make ever more profit - which inevitably leads to stratification of wealth. In my previous post i have presented evidence that it does.


I think many of the regulations that have been abandoned of the past centuries are appropriate:


excerpts from
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/pdf/primers/hidden_corporate_history.pdf
www.reclaimdemocracy.org

"Today, corporations wield immense power over our government, public lands, even our schools. But this was not the intent of our country’s founders.

In 1776 we declared our independence not only from British rule, but also from the corporations of England that controlled trade and extracted wealth from the U.S. (and other) colonies. Thus, in the early days of our country, we only allowed corporations to be chartered (licensed to operate) to serve explicitly as a tool to gather investment and disperse financial liability in order to provide public goods, such as construction of roads, bridges or canals.
After fighting a revolution for freedom from colonialism, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of the similar threats posed by corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. These state laws, many of which remain on the books today, imposed conditions such as these:

- A charter was granted for a limited time.
- Corporations were explicitly chartered for the purpose of serving the public interest-- profit for shareholders was the means to that end.
- Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
- Corporations could be terminated if they exceeded their authority or if they caused public harm.
- Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts they committed on the job.
- Corporations could not make any political contributions, nor spend money to influence legislation.
- A corporation could not purchase or own stock in other corporations, nor own any property other than that necessary to fulfill its chartered purpose."

<more>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 08:00 AM
Response to Reply #8
15. Yep. That'll work.
NOT. You say "increase the tax rate..." and the idiot majority in this country already stopped listening.

They won't do it for the same reason that they buy lottery tickets; they firmly believe the lie that they will eventually make that kind of money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzybeans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #1
16. And who are these shareholders?
The market is code for allowing corporate fleecers to police themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #16
22. Institutions and individual investors...
...and they're the only ones to whom a corporation owes anything financially.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #1
27. Calling it a 'market issue' commoditizes human labor.
Isn't it interesting that the proclaimed 'market forces' are said to drive corporations to cheap labor markets ... except for executives? Just what 'theory' of economics says that people in India, Mexico, China, and Bangladesh offer a better source of human labor in every role except executive management? I just don't see the shareholders acting according to any consistent set of proclaimed 'market' principles. I conclude, therefore, that the proclaimed 'market' principles are a fraud - a lie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #27
38. Labor IS a commodity.
You might not like to hear it, but it's still a fact.

There are means available to level the playing field. A few come to mind quickly:

1) A decent minimum wage

2) Trade policies tied to labor costs, economic conditions, and environmental laws

3) Giving tax incentives to businesses that actually keep jobs in this country instead of our current policy of offering tax breaks and hoping companies don't outsource to other countries
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
upi402 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #38
42. yep, a factor of production
Edited on Fri Jul-07-06 05:27 PM by upi402
in the false field of economics
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #38
46. It is both morally and legally wrong ...
... to treat human labor as a commodity. The core problems of our economy today are rooted in doing so. That public thinking is so infected and corrupted in this regard merely indicates how serious our national condition has become.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. Morally? That's a matter of opinion. Legally? Certainly not.
It is certainly legal to treat labor as a commodity.

It's also neither "moral" or "immoral" to do so in the same way that it's neither "moral" or "immoral" to call a hammer a tool. Morality doesn't factor into the equation...it's simply a fact.

A hammer is a tool.

Labor is a commodity.


That's fact. And, it's legal.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. Read my lips! Do some fucking research! Try 15 USC 17.
Edited on Sat Jul-08-06 12:01 AM by TahitiNut
TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1 > § 17

§ 17. Antitrust laws not applicable to labor organizations

The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce. Nothing contained in the antitrust laws shall be construed to forbid the existence and operation of labor, agricultural, or horticultural organizations, instituted for the purposes of mutual help, and not having capital stock or conducted for profit, or to forbid or restrain individual members of such organizations from lawfully carrying out the legitimate objects thereof; nor shall such organizations, or the members thereof, be held or construed to be illegal combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade, under the antitrust laws.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00000017----000-.html

Insofar as the morality of treating human labor as a commodity, I will merely point out that it's full manifestation is called SLAVERY. If you think the morality of slavery is a "matter of opinion" then we have nothing to discuss. Clear?

Before you post such an asinine and condescending retort, try getting some valid information instead of pulling it out of your ass.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-08-06 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #48
49. Read the entire paragraph you posted.
"Nothing contained in the antitrust laws shall be construed to forbid the existence and operation of labor, agricultural, or horticultural organizations, instituted for the purposes of mutual help, and not having capital stock or conducted for profit, or to forbid or restrain individual members of such organizations from lawfully carrying out the legitimate objects thereof; nor shall such organizations, or the members thereof, be held or construed to be illegal combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade, under the antitrust laws."

This doesn't speak to the reality of labor as a commodity, it speaks to the legitimacy of labor unions.

Labor is still a commodity...

...and there's no need to be snippy in posting your objection to this fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Idioteque Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 02:47 AM
Response to Original message
2. The government has no right to tell a company what to pay its officers.
Last I checked we aren't a communist country. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 02:49 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Right.
The USA is a fascist police state.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MiniMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #3
21. Agreed, but the government could tax them instead of giving them cuts
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 02:54 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. Okay, here's a hint: my question does not relate to socialism.
At all.

Good guess, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 06:09 AM
Response to Reply #2
12. so you think minimum wage standard is communist?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #12
24. Corporate officers are making minimum wage???
I believe the post you responded to was speaking of wage ceilings, not floors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #24
29. Well, if they would, minimum wage would be much higher...
My mistake though; i misread your post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughBeaumont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 06:29 AM
Response to Reply #2
14. Right, because not giving corporations and rich people
whatever they want seventy-googolplex-fold while the other 93% of the country foots the bill = communism.

In what way are your repeated anti-labor stances progressive, sir?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lakeguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 02:50 AM
Response to Original message
4. i say a cap but it should be as a higher tax.
wealthy people make most of their money off of the backs of their employees. no one is worth 400-500 times anyone else no matter how smart they are. the wealthy also use more services. more publicly funded trasportation or communication is used to make profit. more publicly funded security is used to protect assets and profits and so on. why shouldn't you pay more tax if you are making these crazy sums of money. the wealth and natural resources of a nation belong to everyone, not just a few at the top.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 02:56 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. Au contraire.
Edited on Fri Jul-07-06 02:57 AM by MercutioATC
Somebody who makes the shareholders 400-500 times (or more) is "worth" 400-500 times more.


It's the same principle as celebrity endorsements. Should Nike pay Michael Jordan $40M for an endorsement? Hell, he has NOTHING to do with making the shoes...

...as a business decision, yes they should (assuming he generates more than $40M in profits for Nike).


Corporate officers sign contracts. Those contracts guarantee them certain benefits. The shareholders are really the only people who have any say in the matter. If they feel the compensation is extravagant, they have the ability to change that.

It's a matter for the shareholders to address. It's not a matter for legislation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzybeans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #7
18. Please accurately portray how one person in any company
makes the shareholders more than another. Because you see I have this bridge and it is for sale. If you want, I'll sell it at a reasonable market price. Afterwords we can both jump off together. But you first. I'd hate to be impolite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. Good management is key to corporate success.
Lousy management can bankrupt a company. Good management can make the shareholders a lot of money.

Shareholders are like voters (well, they are voters). The company hires management and offers them contracts with shareholder approval in the sense that the shareholders can call for a vote if they feel the company isn't protecting their investment...much in the same way that we can influence legislation by voting for certain candidates.

Shareholders get the company they deserve just as we get the government we deserve.

That aside, a company's primary (most important) duty is to its shareholders, not its employees or society in general. If it feels that paying a CEO 400 times what an employee makes will benefit the company, it's not just their right...it's their responsibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #20
30. What is corporate success?
These days success is not just to not go bankrupt, it is to ever increase the value of the corporation. In corporate success there no such thing as "enough" - in other words, corporate success is driven by greed.
That is how corporate responsibility leads to ever lower wages, which may benefit the corporation and the CEOs, but it does not benefit the vast majority of people - even though supposedly it does benefit "the economy".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #30
34. A corporation's job is to benefit the shareholders, not society in general
...which is kinda my point.

Corporations should be left to do what they do with a minimum of governmental regulation.

At the same time, we should insist on a higher minimum wage and only offer tax incentives to companies that actually keep jobs in this country, not give them tax breaks hoping they wont move jobs overseas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-08-06 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #34
50. Which is my point as well;
It is the problem with corporations; they benefit themselves (the owners, investors) at the expense of society - while claiming that it's good for society. It is outright exploitation of society, which is why corporations should be regulated - and self-regulation doesn't cut it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adwon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 03:06 AM
Response to Original message
9. Capping is the wrong way to go
A better method would be pass legislation that makes it easier for smaller shareholders to counter the influence of larger ones. Probably wouldn't hurt to require more disinterested board members, either. The real problem is one of law. Court decisions have ceded a great deal of freedom to officers and boards. Legislatures can overrule those decisions any day they like. After all, there is no constitutional right to a corporation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 03:09 AM
Response to Original message
10. Pragmatic bite-sized talking point: Don't cap it, tax it!
If you're making well into the seven digit range and beyond, then you should pay a far higher tax rate than a working class stiff who makes 40,000 a year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maestro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 06:25 AM
Response to Original message
13. Jim Hightower just had some commentary about why.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzybeans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 09:18 AM
Response to Original message
17. I say it is immoral for any corp officer to make more than a reasonable
Edited on Fri Jul-07-06 09:19 AM by izzybeans
percentage than the lowest worker in the hierarchy. That percentage should be defined via some debate about the functional necessity of each and every job.

This would redistribute wealth more equitably within a capitalist economy and it would provide actual incentive for CEOs to do right by their employees and themselves. That is because their pay would be tied directly to the actual cash flow of the company, as is worker pay, and not some fictional market fairy who magically sets the value at RIDICULOUS SUM OF MONEY. CEO pay is perhaps the biggest drain on the availability of middle income jobs. Think about how many workers Jack Welch's salary would have funded, and then times that by four when considering his retirement package. And it is a good thing for him that he had workers to tell him what would work otherwise he couldn't have taken credit for all those masterbatory best sellers.

Of course this would never happen because fascists patrol the corporate landscape, little Eric Cartmans with the ego of the Titanic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #17
25. It's about who's making money for the company.
The lowest-paid worker might be sweeping floors. What dollar amount does that contribute to the company's bottom line?

A CEO, on the other hand, makes decisions that often result in billions of dollars of potential earnings for the company. Why artificially limit the compensation of somebody who has a much bigger job?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughBeaumont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #25
31. On that same logic,
why not just give people like Carly Fiorina the sky for slashing workers, offshoring jobs and still NOT make money for the companies she runs (into the ground)?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. That's up to the shareholders.
If they don't feel management is protecting their investment, they have the ability to remove that management.

...sorta like us voters...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #25
37. well in a perfect world that would be true
But we are talking the real world here. CEOs fail and they move on to the next high paid job. Please lets be realistic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. Bad politicians keep getting elected, too. Whose responsibility is that?
The shareholders (that's us if we're talking about the company we call "The United States of America").


Again, I'll admit that there might be a more practical (but less pure) solution out there.

Got a solution? I'd like to hear it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. does CEO pay bother you??
Does Lee Raymonds pension bother you??

Does it bother you that GM is trying to eliminate pensions of middle class workers because their CEOs need bloated pensions?

Does it bother you that there always has to be layoffs because a company is not profiting enough?

I dont have a perfect solution, but it seems pretty easy for me to see a board of directors and CEO lay off a bunch of workers and give themselves a big fat pay raise.

Shouldnt the government be there to protect the little guy against such displays of greed?

Maybe Im just being a commie bastard. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #41
44. No, it doesn't.
What does bother me (outsourcing, unfunded pensions, etc.) can be much better dealt with by dealing with the individual issues specifically.

Upset about retirees losing their pensions? Support a federal law that would require all pensions to be fully funded.

Upset about outsourcing? Stop throwing money at companies in the hope that they'll keep jobs here. Only give them tax breaks if they actually do it. Insist on REAL trade agreements that factor in things like cost of living and environmental regulations.


Limiting CEO pay won't do a thing to solve these problems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrGonzoLives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 09:42 AM
Response to Original message
19. It would be nice
But what becomes "too much"? Do we just know it when we see it?

The real problem is that shareholders are not demanding enough accountability from the executives that run the companies they invest in - the entire system is a good ol' boy network, since those of us with company retirement plans have no idea who our money is going towards, and most normal people who are pissed about stuff like this don't have the money to become full shareholders.

I'm uncomfortable with the idea that the government should decide how much money you should make. I despise cookie-cutter social engineering on that scale - cost of living differs, some people are more skilled and work harder, et cetera. By having government mandated salary caps, you are continuing down the road of treating people as things, not individuals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
26. No, and no, and here's why
Edited on Fri Jul-07-06 12:18 PM by berni_mccoy
An individual, as a sole proprietor, creates an invention which he patents. He is his own corporate officer and 100% of his share holders. He ends up licensing that patent for MILLIONS of dollars. Are you going to cap his income?

Now, instead of an individual, you have stock holders who own a company. That company is under the control of stock-holder appointed officers. Are you going to tell those stock holders who have likely invested millions of dollars that they can not now collect the rewards for taking the risk on their investment. With corporations, especially those trying to grow, the general principle in the stock market is that with greater risk comes greater reward. The stock holders mitigate their risk by compensating the officers of the company richly. And they do it in the form of stock grants so that the officer is also a stock holder who has a vested interest in the success of the company.

By limiting the reward of the officers you are preventing the stock holders from mitigating their risk. The more stock-holders invest in a company, the more competitive that company can be in obtaining the best officers. It's not a perfect system and there are certainly richly rewarded poor-performing officers, but at least the stock-holders can make that choice when they invest in the company. By limiting reward of the officers you are limiting the choice and freedom of investors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reprobate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
32. The "Market" should set the price? The "stockholders"? LOL
Edited on Fri Jul-07-06 01:10 PM by reprobate

Neither has anything to do with the pay and benefits of CEOs and other upper management. Their pay is usually set by a committee of the board of directors, somethimes known as the 'renumeration' committee.

There is no better example of incestuous conduct than these board of directors, with members of one corps board often sitting on a dozen other corporrate boards. And remember that these directors are all buds with the CEOs and VPs of all the corporations they sit on. If any 'renumeration' committee has ever cut the pay of a CEO for poor performance I haven't been able to find it, and would appreciate it if anyone could site a case.

As it stand now, American corporate governance is THE definition of an oligarchy. It's out of control and answerable to no one but itself.

The market? Stockholders? No. the only way to change it is by the people getting fed up with it and demending regulation.. Provided of cours, that we return a populist governmnet to power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
porphyrian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 01:13 PM
Response to Original message
33. This is a bandaid solution.
If you want to solve the problem, either revoke all corporate "personhood" or make corporations, and those that drive corporate decisions (i.e. corporate officers), responsible and accountable for their actions. Income caps will just cause the same people you want to punish to use their influence to create another loophole which may be worse than the cure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 05:04 PM
Response to Original message
36. one: yes two: no idea
It is outrageous that anyone needs to earn $50million in a year. Personally I'd put the cap at $1million but I can allow for more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Massacure Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 05:18 PM
Response to Original message
40. Money needs to flow somehow. How it flows is irrelevant.
Right now too much of it is either being sat on or being sent overseas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PWRinNY Donating Member (456 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 05:35 PM
Response to Original message
43. I vote no and no because
while it would be nice if corporate officers' income could be capped for the greater good, what you're looking at in trying to cap it is yet ANOTHER reduction of constitutional freedom. Our Constitution guarantees each of us the right of pursuit of happiness. And for some, building riches IS their happiness. If America legislated caps on incomes, we are no longer America. I think it's unconstitutional to try it. America is the land of the free. (Excuse my sarcasm, for those of you who cannot hear my thoughts screaming "yeah right, the America of the past we all once believed in, when America USED to be free...) But some people are able to build businesses and make tons of money - and they should be free to do so in America.

Now - if GREED, on the other hand, could be legislated, we might begin to get somewhere. But it's a human condition, unfortunately. I wish everyone could learn a valuable lesson from John Mackey (Whole Foods founder), who voluntarily capped his income, and pays his employees very well. Top notch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-07-06 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. See my post #26 above
Many here at DU are quick to judge the wealthy as republicans or evildoers.

While I agree there is inequality between the wealth and the poor on many political and governmental leves (taxes is one of them), I don't think these types of overreactive approaches are constructive to solving the problem.

The poor should definitely pay less in taxes and the wealthy should bear the burden. I posted on my Journal here not long ago that the top 1% of income earners could bear a 0.5% tax increase so that anyone making less than $20K per year would pay ZERO taxes. These are the kinds of approaches that will constructively bring back balance and foster the growth of a middle class.

Right now we are headed toward a destruction of the middle class and an increase in the division of wealth. That will be a very unhealthy situation for ALL Americans and we must avoid it at all costs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 08:35 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC