Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 92: Sean Spicer = Bill Clinton: Between Two Bushes.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Maximum wages are a pretty ridiculous idea tbqh
---

Pokewars posted...

How are CEO's "hoarding" profits? They are compensated just like anyone else. CEOs take on huge responsibilities. What arbitrary limit would be set upon them? It's up to the companies to decide how they are to be paid.

They're not doing 1000x the work, they shouldn't be making 1000x the money.

And it's not the company that decides how they're being paid, it's the CEOs themselves.

Often times, they assign themselves raises while simultaneously cutting pay for workers. Blatantly.

The workers are the ones generating the profit, and yet they don't even get to see most of the fruits of their labor. They make big bucks for their business, and are rewarded with an extra quarter - while the CEO raises their own pay $250.

This is theft.

LordoftheMorons posted...

Maximum wages are a pretty ridiculous idea tbqh

Ridiculous situations need ridiculous ideas.

And the real life equivalent of that one cartoon gag where a selfish prick cuts a slice of something and proceeds to take everything *but* the slice needs a ridiculous idea.
---

CEOs aren't dictators in their own companies. They have people to answer to as well (Board of Directors).

BowserCuffs posted...

They're not doing 1000x the work, they shouldn't be making 1000x the money.

Says you. Do you know how few people there are that can actually run a multi-million/billion company? CEOs get paid generally what the market says they ought to be paid. It's not a position to be taken lightly.
---

Pokewars posted...

Says you. Do you know how few people there are that can actually run a multi-million/billion company? CEOs get paid generally what the market says they ought to be paid. It's not a position to be taken lightly.

I'd like to know what CEO can run a company without workers.

On the other hand, a company without a CEO can run just fine.
---

I mean, the solution is a combination of stuff like a (reasonable) minimum wage (if you push it too high you will start to increase unemployment; I agree that it's too low now, but I suspect that $15/hour may be too high) and an adequate social safety net. This probably does mean higher taxes. It definitely doesn't mean maximum wages, which very likely wouldn't increase employee compensation anyway (though it would have a negative effect on the ability of companies to compete for talented CEOs).
---

You're also telling people/companies/shareholders what to do with their money in a pretty egregious way. The only maximum price on anything is what people are willing (or able) to pay (this is a standard capitalist philosophy). Don't get me wrong, Martin Shrekeli or whatever the hell is name is is a fucking scumlord, but in terms of something like paying someone "too much" of your money to do a job...not on board.

Also of note, base salary is basically never the bulk of a CEO's earnings; it's all in stock and stock options. It's how you tie their pay with the performance of the company.
---

You're also out of your mind if you think being the CEO of say a regional bank with a market cap of $4 billion, and being the CEO of Amazon with a ~$450 billion market cap deserve the same pay.
---

maximum wage is the wrong way to go about something like that.

The drastic solution is a % earnings cap based on how much money lower level employees are paid(this % becomes very complicated, obviously). An outright maximum is flawed in a number of ways(It kills competition). Basically, you want to assure that wealth is spread to all levels of employment.

None of this will happen in our lifetimes though. Also $15 an hour is a fine minimum wage in certain areas right now(Excessive in others, but in major cities its definitely reasonable).
---

ViviffTheMobile posted...

base salary is basically never the bulk of a CEO's earnings; it's all in stock and stock options.

If that's the case, we should be paying them subminimum wage. I mean, we pay waiters subminimum wage because of tips, we should be paying CEOs subminimum wage because of stocks.

They'll still be making enough money to never have to worry.

red13n posted...

maximum wage is the wrong way to go about something like that.

The drastic solution is a % earnings cap based on how much money lower level employees are paid(this % becomes very complicated, obviously). An outright maximum is flawed in a number of ways(It kills competition). Basically, you want to assure that wealth is spread to all levels of employment.

None of this will happen in our lifetimes though. Also $15 an hour is a fine minimum wage in certain areas right now(Excessive in others, but in major cities its definitely reasonable).

I like this idea a lot better than a flat maximum wage actually.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Sounds like Trey "Benghazi fishing expedition" Gowdy is on Trump's FBI director shortlist:

https://twitter.com/dnvolz/status/862476413978411014

This shortlist is soberingly frightening

The thought of Giuliani as FBI director makes me physically ill
---

BowserCuffs posted...

I'd like to know what CEO can run a company without workers.

On the other hand, a company without a CEO can run just fine.

Who said anything about a CEO being able to run a company with no workers? Whatever title you want to give "the leader of a company", workers can't just show up to work and do......what? What are they told to do? Do they have the skill to steer the company to see their profits maximize? If so, then they should become the leader and be compensated accordingly! Oh wait, that's what a CEO is!
---

Jakyl25 posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

Sounds like Trey "Benghazi fishing expedition" Gowdy is on Trump's FBI director shortlist:

https://twitter.com/dnvolz/status/862476413978411014

This shortlist is soberingly frightening

The thought of Giuliani as FBI director makes me physically ill

I'm surprised he can just unilaterally hire an FBI director. I get firing one, but why wouldn't he need confirmation for a new one?
---

TheRock1525 posted...

I'm surprised he can just unilaterally hire an FBI director. I get firing one, but why wouldn't he need confirmation for a new one?

You think the Senate would stop him?
---

The FBI director does need Senate confirmation, but betting on courage from GOP members of Congress is a pretty bold move
---

(Though I do think there's a decent change they would reject Giuliani in particular if Trump was dumb enough to pick him. Trey Gowdy would probably be almost as bad though and I wouldn't trust them at all to block him despite the fact that he would almost guarantee a politicized FBI)
---

Pokewars posted...

BowserCuffs posted...

I'd like to know what CEO can run a company without workers.

On the other hand, a company without a CEO can run just fine.

Who said anything about a CEO being able to run a company with no workers? Whatever title you want to give "the leader of a company", workers can't just show up to work and do......what? What are they told to do? Do they have the skill to steer the company to see their profits maximize? If so, then they should become the leader and be compensated accordingly! Oh wait, that's what a CEO is!

Or everyone understands what the company is supposed to do and they get along just fine without a figurehead because they already have the direction they need. Bob does the finances and the transactions, Janice helps oversee everyone to make sure the task is going right, and Bill makes sure the supplies stay stocked.

They had a CEO but he died, and they collectively decided to go in a better direction and start making more money.

On the other hand, George is running a business and keeps shortchanging his workers, and in the end, due to inflation and gas prices, it costs more to get to work than they actually get paid, so they're all forced quit. Surely, since the CEO is such an important position, he should be fine, right?

Oh wait, he has no work experience, he doesn't know how to operate the machinery, the finances go nuts. He has a plan but no one to implement it, and his shmoozing isn't making him any money.

EDIT: Also, seriously? Compensated for what? CEOs literally do the least work of anyone in the company, and make the most money. You're compensating them for having to do less work. It's absurd.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

I'm surprised he can just unilaterally hire an FBI director. I get firing one, but why wouldn't he need confirmation for a new one?

You think the Senate would stop him?

Depends. The Senate killed his Healthcare bill but they also let Betsy DeVos in.

I just didn't know the FBI director needed senate confirmation.
---

Hey, I didn't know the FBI director could be fired on a whim for obviously corrupt reasons

Maybe that should require senate confirmation too. oh wait the senate is also corrupt, shit.

I think you're severely underestimating the impact a CEO has on a company's success or failure

The workers are, of course, also vital, but there's also a much larger supply of (more or less) interchangeable workers. In addition, a single worker's success or failure isn't (in most cases) going to have a huge effect on the success of the company, whereas a CEO making like 75% good decisions instead of 65% good decisions might be he difference between the company succeeding or failing.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

Depends. The Senate killed his Healthcare bill but they also let Betsy DeVos in.

Killed his health care bill? They haven't voted on it yet have they?
---

AHCA is unfortunately very much still zombified
---

Jakyl25 posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

Depends. The Senate killed his Healthcare bill but they also let Betsy DeVos in.

Killed his health care bill? They haven't voted on it yet have they?

They already said they're writing their own so yes it's DOA. Most Senators aren't willing to put their vote next to that disaster.
---

We could get a whole new disaster. Its very difficult to predict what will come out of this other than that it will most benefit the wealthy.

Paratroopa1 posted...

Hey, I didn't know the FBI director could be fired on a whim for obviously corrupt reasons

Maybe that should require senate confirmation too. oh wait the senate is also corrupt, shit.

We need republicans out of national government, they can't handle the responsibility.
---

Oh yeah they're definitely not going to pass the House bill as written, but if they end up passing something that only cuts taxes for the rich by $500 billion instead of $1 trillion and only results in 12 million people losing their insurance instead of 24 million I'm not exactly going to be jumping for joy.
---

Thought the issue with the Senate was on rolling back Medicaid and pre-existing conditions.
---

Those and the Essential Health Benefits

But fundamentally the AHCA is about passing a massive tax cut by gutting peoples' health insurance. They can adjust the numbers a bit, maybe take out the preexisting condition/EHB fuckery, etc, but when your goal is to take on the order of a trillion dollars out of the system you're going to be forced to fuck over a lot of people.
---

BowserCuffs posted...

Pokewars posted...

BowserCuffs posted...

I'd like to know what CEO can run a company without workers.

On the other hand, a company without a CEO can run just fine.

Who said anything about a CEO being able to run a company with no workers? Whatever title you want to give "the leader of a company", workers can't just show up to work and do......what? What are they told to do? Do they have the skill to steer the company to see their profits maximize? If so, then they should become the leader and be compensated accordingly! Oh wait, that's what a CEO is!

Or everyone understands what the company is supposed to do and they get along just fine without a figurehead because they already have the direction they need. Bob does the finances and the transactions, Janice helps oversee everyone to make sure the task is going right, and Bill makes sure the supplies stay stocked.

They had a CEO but he died, and they collectively decided to go in a better direction and start making more money.

On the other hand, George is running a business and keeps shortchanging his workers, and in the end, due to inflation and gas prices, it costs more to get to work than they actually get paid, so they're all forced quit. Surely, since the CEO is such an important position, he should be fine, right?

Oh wait, he has no work experience, he doesn't know how to operate the machinery, the finances go nuts. He has a plan but no one to implement it, and his shmoozing isn't making him any money.

EDIT: Also, seriously? Compensated for what? CEOs literally do the least work of anyone in the company, and make the most money. You're compensating them for having to do less work. It's absurd.

....you should take a business class. ANY business class. It's clear you have no foundation of knowledge in business management or adminstration.
---

I'll agree with the statement "company executives are likely overpaid" in a heartbeat. But "company executives don't contribute to the business in a meaningful way" is absolute horse shit.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

The FBI director does need Senate confirmation, but betting on courage from GOP members of Congress is a pretty bold move

Some are saying that McCain, Graham, and Collins blocking the methane regulation rollback yesterday was a bit of signaling. These are senators who never previously gave a shit about environmental stuff like that, but they joined unanimous Dems (even Manchin and Heitkamp!) to block a GOP agenda item. We'll see if they stay opposed to the Trump agenda on issues that matter but it's certainly unexpected and hard not to read more into it.
---

Well, their stated reason (at least for McCain/Graham iirc) was that the Congressional Review Act precludes a "substantially similar" regulation from being implemented in the future. They said they weren't particularly fond of this one, but thought that removing the ability to have any rule like it would be bad.
---

BowserCuffs posted...

Also, seriously? Compensated for what? CEOs literally do the least work of anyone in the company, and make the most money. You're compensating them for having to do less work. It's absurd.

underage user alert
---

I'm impressed McCain put his vote where his mouth is for once.

ugh one can only take so much liberal bullshit

the ratio of pay between top CEOs and the typical worker is 303 : 1, and has been exponentially rising since the 70s (in the same time, the wealth gap has increased....coincidence?), the majority of these companies exist solely to produce profit for shareholders and give their workers the bare minimum they can to attract talent. the CEO gets paid a lot because it is entirely his responsibility to make sure the shareholders get money for nothing.


however in a gargantuan 800+ billion dollar system run by the government, the US military, we somehow manage to provide free healthcare, childcare, housing, food, college tuition, retirement after 20 yrs, all the while having a pay gap between the most junior enlisted worker and the top general of 10 : 1. the private sector just has different goals of profiting for capitalist shareholders (who ACTUALLY do very little to no work) rather than taking care of the people who work there.

Unknown_voter are you cyclo
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Unknown_voter are you cyclo

do you really need to ask? >_>
---

and everyone recognizing the greed of our system but not sure how to fix it needs to look into market socialism, where workers own the means of production, cutting out the shareholders and capitalist swine while deciding amongst themselves how the profits will be shared. far better a system for believers in the market.

Unknown_voter posted...

one can only take so much liberal bullshit

Unknown_voter posted...

everyone recognizing the greed of our system but not sure how to fix it needs to look into market socialism, where workers own the means of production, cutting out the shareholders and capitalist swine

I'm confused.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Unknown_voter are you cyclo

I used to post here as "WVI"

my only other account is "whoa"

Most economists suggest the main reason for income inequality since the 60s/70s is assortive mating.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/29/new-academic-study-links-rising-income-inequality-to-assortive-mating/

"Greenwood and his colleagues estimated that the Gini coefficient was .34 in 1960, or about a third of the way to complete inequality. When they randomly matched people by education level and recalculated the coefficient, the answer was basically the same: The Gini coefficient still stood at .34, suggesting that assortative mating by education played little, if any, role in income inequality.

Then they applied the same method to 2005 data. Now the overall Gini coefficient was .43, an increase of about .09 since 1960 and consistent with other research. But when they randomly matched people by education and re-ran their analysis, the Gini index plummeted to .34, showing that today, “assortative mating is important for income inequality.”"

There are numerous other links that detail the same thing if you'd like to read them as well.
---

whoa

The dragon dude?
---

wait really?

man i was 100% convinced you were cyclo.
---

Metal_DK posted...

Most economists suggest the main reason for income inequality since the 60s/70s is assortive mating.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/29/new-academic-study-links-rising-income-inequality-to-assortive-mating/

"Greenwood and his colleagues estimated that the Gini coefficient was .34 in 1960, or about a third of the way to complete inequality. When they randomly matched people by education level and recalculated the coefficient, the answer was basically the same: The Gini coefficient still stood at .34, suggesting that assortative mating by education played little, if any, role in income inequality.

Then they applied the same method to 2005 data. Now the overall Gini coefficient was .43, an increase of about .09 since 1960 and consistent with other research. But when they randomly matched people by education and re-ran their analysis, the Gini index plummeted to .34, showing that today, “assortative mating is important for income inequality.”"

There are numerous other links that detail the same thing if you'd like to read them as well.

This is really interesting. Thanks for sharing.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

The dragon dude?

yep

catching up and the main thing that sticks out is that BowserCuffs really needs to take an economics class
---

FFDragon posted...

catching up and the main thing that sticks out is that BowserCuffs really needs to take an economics class

^^^^^
---

https://twitter.com/PreetBharara/status/862463204416512000

(From the other guy who was investigating, and was subsequently fired by, Trump)
---

Unknown_voter posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

Unknown_voter are you cyclo

I used to post here as "WVI"

my only other account is "whoa"

wait what the fuck how
---

I would guess that cyclo is joking
---