$70,000 salary CEO is doing just fine

Revoltingest · Apr 15, 2021

sun rise said:
In this case it was the enemies of generosity (Fox and friends) who attacked him for "socialism".

I don't defend Fox.
Just noticing that the some on left & the right often use the
same definition of "socialism", one to praise, one to demonize.

Personally I'm a fan of fairness and generosity. And it would not bother me if the CEO made more than the employee on the bottom as long as those on the bottom were paid a living wage and those on the top had a reasonable multiple (to be discussed) of those on the bottom.

The great thing about capitalism is running a business
as one wants (within the laws of economics & the law).
If you went into business, you could be the example
you want to set for others.

Revoltingest · Apr 15, 2021

sun rise said:
If I accept that number, than the majority of American in every state have crappy salaries and that is then a real problem.

"Crappy" is just my perspective.
And I'll wager that 99% of CEOs see it that way.

Stevicus · Apr 15, 2021

Revoltingest said:
Calling it subjective, & denying objectivity sounds
like someone trying to justify no one's work being
any more valuable than anyone else's.

No, I'm trying to get capitalists to justify why they think their work is so much more valuable than anyone else's. I can see it some cases, especially for professional occupations which require advanced degrees and years of schooling. But even then, I can't see any justification that the difference should be that much.

Consider the difference in pay between military ranks. (2021 Military Pay Charts | Military Benefits) Officers, of course, earn more than enlisted, presumably because the officers are more productive, more talented, etc., while the enlisted personnel are the "other half" who are just there to punch a clock. But even then, the difference isn't that great. The top ranking officer (O-10) only makes 2.5 times more than their enlisted counterpart (E-9) (see link for source). It's only 9.3 times higher than E-1, entry level.

Consider what customers are willing to pay,
rather than the cost of delivering calories.

Customers are suckers. They'll pay money for a Pet Rock. They're paying for an illusion.

Revoltingest · Apr 15, 2021

Stevicus said:
No, I'm trying to get capitalists to justify why they think their work is so much more valuable than anyone else's.

That's changing the claim.
Not all capitalists' work is more valuable than others'.
Who claims that?

I can see it some cases, especially for professional occupations which require advanced degrees and years of schooling. But even then, I can't see any justification that the difference should be that much.

If the wages are indeed that unreasonably skewed, then
you could make a fortune running a company based upon
a different model...one that saves you money on labor.
Pay the professionals & managers much less, & the laborers
a little more....see how it goes, eh.

Customers are suckers. They'll pay money for a Pet Rock. They're paying for an illusion.

Buying a Pet Rock isn't dumb.
It's entertainment.

sun rise · Apr 15, 2021

Revoltingest said:
The great thing about capitalism is running a business
as one wants (within the laws of economics & the law).
If you went into business, you could be the example
you want to set for others.

There needs to be a counterweight to the unbounded greed of some whether it be a steeply progressive tax rate or something else.

Stevicus · Apr 15, 2021

Revoltingest said:
Some do.
But I see fairness & equality (of opportunity, not outcome) as
simply desirable....also compatible with any economic system.

It seems that some capitalists don't agree with that.

Perhaps they see that idea as being imposed by government,
& interference with business ownership to the extent that it's
regulation in the direction of socialism, ie, it's an element of
ownership by government.

But as you've repeatedly pointed out, unless it involves direct ownership of the means of production it doesn't count as socialism. Saying it's "in the direction of socialism" doesn't really count either.

The government imposes the system upon the people in any case. The problem isn't really with capitalists, in and of themselves. It's in how they view government and their philosophy about what government should or should not do. But even then, they're not very consistent. They generally want government to interfere if such interference works to their benefit. Look at how many capitalists hire lawyers and go to court, as they want to use the power of government against others.

Socialism merely seeks to equalize things, so that the system isn't stacked against those who can't afford to hire expensive attorneys who are experts at gaming the system. Ideally, all judges would be trained party comrades, who would base their rulings on what is best for the people, not what is best for lawyers or capitalists.

Only if you don't understand ~~them~~ us.
Perhaps you don't consider the assumptions &
consequences of the hypothetical from their perspective.

It's not because I haven't bothered to ask them. I've asked on various occasions to provide a logical and/or mathematical justification for CEO salaries and why they're so much higher than that of the line staff, yet all I get is BS. I want someone to prove to me and to show their work, not just leave it with "that's what I think is fair." That's a subjective judgment. I want to see some objectivity, especially since I've asked nicely so many times. My assumption is that the evasiveness and avoidance is due to the likelihood that they can't answer it objectively. Because they themselves don't know why. It's simply a matter of faith.

sun rise · Apr 15, 2021

Revoltingest said:
Not all capitalists' work is more valuable than others'.
Who claims that?

Why CEOs make so much money

"CEOs are key to success," says Daniel Pryor, head of programmes at the Adam Smith Institute, a neoliberal think tank. "It's quite clear there are a limited number of people that have the skills, the personality and disposition to be the CEO of a top company, and those limited number of people are highly sought after."

Revoltingest · Apr 15, 2021

sun rise said:
There needs to be a counterweight to the unbounded greed of some whether it be a steeply progressive tax rate or something else.

Some people just have too much, eh.

sun rise · Apr 15, 2021

Revoltingest said:
Some people just have too much, eh.

If they have so much that employees are not being paid a living wage while those on the top buy islands, then yes, some have too much.

Otherwise you are saying that it's perfectly OK for workers to not be able to afford food and need food stamps, not be able to afford decent housing and live in their cars and not be able to afford medical care and suffer from curable illnesses as is the case today for too many.

Revoltingest · Apr 15, 2021

Stevicus said:
It seems that some capitalists don't agree with that.

Links?

But as you've repeatedly pointed out, unless it involves direct ownership of the means of production it doesn't count as socialism. Saying it's "in the direction of socialism" doesn't really count either.

No, I've oft said that ownership is a "bundle of rights" (a real estate
term). For example, leasehold estates have fewer rights than
freehold estates.
Regulation of business is a continuum ranging theoretically from
none to effectively full ownership by government, which would
be socialist (if it's the "means of production"). If a new regulation
transfers a private owner's right to government, this is "in the
direction of socialism", analogous vector (magnitude & direction).
Think in terms of change, not absolutely one thing or another.

Socialism merely seeks to equalize things, so that the system isn't stacked against those who can't afford to hire expensive attorneys who are experts at gaming the system.

Socialism doesn't exactly operate that way empirically.
There's always a hierarchy of wealth, power, & privilege.

Ideally, all judges would be trained party comrades, who would base their rulings on what is best for the people, not what is best for lawyers or capitalists.

Real world systems with people don't operate ideally.
Thus socialism & capitalism are their emergent properties,
not their theoretical constructs.

It's not because I haven't bothered to ask them. I've asked on various occasions to provide a logical and/or mathematical justification for CEO salaries and why they're so much higher than that of the line staff, yet all I get is BS. I want someone to prove to me and to show their work, not just leave it with "that's what I think is fair." That's a subjective judgment. I want to see some objectivity, especially I've asked nicely so many times. My assumption is that the evasiveness and avoidance is due to the likelihood that they can't answer it objectively. Because they themselves don't know why. It's simply a matter of faith.

I don't think they could prove a stochastic process
to you in simple terms. When I give reasons, you
dismiss them as "subjective".

Stevicus · Apr 15, 2021

Revoltingest said:
That's changing the claim.
Not all capitalists' work is more valuable than others'.
Who claims that?

It's not changing the claim. As I see it, it all works into the same basic claim that "those who work the hardest will reap the rewards," and all I'm saying is "prove it." That can't be too difficult, can it?

If the wages are indeed that unreasonably skewed, then
you could make a fortune running a company based upon
a different model...one that saves you money on labor.
Pay the professionals & managers much less, & the laborers
a little more....see how it goes, eh.

Well, isn't that what the OP of this thread is all about? It looks like that business model is working well. All businesses should do that, don't you think?

Buying a Pet Rock isn't dumb.
It's entertainment.

You can just get any old rock off the ground. They're everywhere. Nature is entertaining for free.

Revoltingest · Apr 15, 2021

sun rise said:
If they have so much that employees are not being paid a living wage while those on the top buy islands, then yes, some have too much.

Otherwise you are saying that it's perfectly OK for workers to not be able to afford food and need food stamps, not be able to afford decent housing and live in their cars and not be able to afford medical care and suffer from curable illnesses as is the case today for too many.

I don't say that wages should be this or that level.
Only that it's a negotiation between employer & employee.
The latter cannot just expect a wage that meets their needs.
They might not be worth that cost.
This will become an ever bigger problem, hence the emergence
of the UBI to provide for them to some extent.

Revoltingest · Apr 15, 2021

Stevicus said:
It's not changing the claim. As I see it, it all works into the same basic claim that "those who work the hardest will reap the rewards," and all I'm saying is "prove it." That can't be too difficult, can it?

You changed the wording in a way that
greatly changed the meaning I inferred.
So I elaborated on the new claim.

Well, isn't that what the OP of this thread is all about? It looks like that business model is working well. All businesses should do that, don't you think?

No, it wasn't about the compensation model being
a superior (profit oriented) business model.

You can just get any old rock off the ground. They're everywhere. Nature is entertaining for free.

I cannot explain how they're entertaining.
But people find them to be.
And they know of the option to pick rocks up
off the ground...except in national parks.

TransmutingSoul · Apr 15, 2021

Stevicus said:
Fans of capitalism often confuse fairness and equality as "socialist" and condemn it on that basis alone. The idea of line staff making the same as a CEO somehow offends their sensibilities. There's no logic to a capitalist's position; it's all emotion to them.

@Revoltingest

Interestingly in the Baha'i Writings it says that wages should not be equal, but be more balanced. The wage difference is out of control.

It is also offered that workers should share in the profits of the organisation they work for.

Regards Tony

Revoltingest · Apr 15, 2021

Tony Bristow-Stagg said:
@Revoltingest

Interestingly in the Baha'i Writings it says that wages should not be equal, but be more balanced. The wage difference is out of control.

It is also offered that workers should share in the profits of the organisation they work for.

Regards Tony

OK.

Stevicus · Apr 15, 2021

Revoltingest said:
Links?

Those were also provided upthread. I quoted an excerpt from the OP article:

The rabid Fox hosts called him "foolish," a "lunatic of all lunatics" and, gasp, a "socialist." They said his employees would be "on the welfare lines." Rush Limbaugh said, "This is pure unadulterated socialism, which has never worked. That's why I hope this company is a case study in MBA programs on how socialism does not work, because it's going to fail." Oh, how wrong they were.

No, I've oft said that ownership is a "bundle of rights" (a real estate
term). For example, leasehold estates have fewer rights than
freehold estates.
Regulation of business is a continuum ranging theoretically from
none to effectively full ownership by government, which would
be socialist (if it's the "means of production"). If a new regulation
transfers a private owner's right to government, this is "in the
direction of socialism", analogous vector (magnitude & direction).
Think in terms of change, not absolutely one thing or another.

Oh? So does that mean you're retreating from your earlier position that socialism is an "either/or" condition? You keep saying that countries like Denmark and Sweden are capitalist, even though they have socialized medicine and other benefits Americans do not have.

Socialism doesn't exactly operate that way empirically.
There's always a hierarchy of wealth, power, & privilege.

Not to the extremes we have in the U.S.

Real world systems with people don't operate ideally.
Thus socialism & capitalism are their emergent properties,
not their theoretical constructs.

It's also based on their stated purpose and motivation. A socialist wants to make life better for all. A capitalist only wants to make life better for "me." It's all about "me, me, me" with capitalists (and then we wonder why all these younger generations feel so entitled and narcissistic). Socialists think about "us."

I don't think they could prove a stochastic process
to you in simple terms. When I give reasons, you
dismiss them as "subjective".

Well, ultimately, that's what it comes down to. It's just someone's opinion of what someone believes someone or something is "worth."

Just for fun, I looked up the estimated values of the painting "Dogs Playing Poker" and the "Mona Lisa." I found that "Dogs Playing Poker" was sold at auction in 2015 for $658,000. (Dogs Playing Poker - Wikipedia) The "Mona Lisa" appraisal in 2019 dollars was $850,000,000. (List of most expensive paintings - Wikipedia)

I'm sure that an art aficionado would be able to explain why there's such a huge difference in value between these paintings. To me, "Dogs Playing Poker" is the much better painting and should be worth more, but I'm not an art buff. I'm such a low-brow type that the artsy-fartsy people point and laugh at me.

But the professional art appraiser might look at various factors and should be able to come up with something. At least, one can expect a detailed explanation as to how they reached their opinion of what something is worth. It would still be subjective, but at least it would have something of substance to back it up.

Isolde Schulz · Apr 15, 2021

sun rise said:
In spite of being called a socialist and the predictions that the CEO was headed to ruin by lowering his salary to $70k and raising his employees salary to $70k, he's doing just fine: Isn't it amazing what can happen when the boss is not greedy and treats his employees very well:

Since our $70k min wage was announced 6 years ago today:
*Our revenue tripled
*Head count grew 70%
*Customer base doubled
*Babies had by staff grew 10x
*70% of employees paid down debt
*Homes bought by employees grew 10x
*401(k) contributions grew 155%
*Turnover dropped in half
...
Treating employees well saves money in the long run.

For example, our small biz with a $70k min wage received 3,663 job applications this year – 280 per opening.

We paid $0 advertising and got great candidates.

I keep seeing stories of companies struggling to hire. Wonder why.

— Dan Price (@DanPriceSeattle) April 12, 2021

Meanwhile Bernie Madoff (ironic name) died at 82 in prison. The opposite of course of what you illustrated. Nice statistics, but I object to the "Babies had by staff grew 10x".
The Earth is overpopulated, and being an only child I'm more conscious of it. But not to detract from your good point.

Revoltingest · Apr 15, 2021

Stevicus said:
Those were also provided upthread. I quoted an excerpt from the OP article:

Oh? So does that mean you're retreating from your earlier position that socialism is an "either/or" condition? You keep saying that countries like Denmark and Sweden are capitalist, even though they have socialized medicine and other benefits Americans do not have.

Not to the extremes we have in the U.S.

It's also based on their stated purpose and motivation. A socialist wants to make life better for all. A capitalist only wants to make life better for "me." It's all about "me, me, me" with capitalists (and then we wonder why all these younger generations feel so entitled and narcissistic). Socialists think about "us."

Well, ultimately, that's what it comes down to. It's just someone's opinion of what someone believes someone or something is "worth."

Just for fun, I looked up the estimated values of the painting "Dogs Playing Poker" and the "Mona Lisa." I found that "Dogs Playing Poker" was sold at auction in 2015 for $658,000. (Dogs Playing Poker - Wikipedia) The "Mona Lisa" appraisal in 2019 dollars was $850,000,000. (List of most expensive paintings - Wikipedia)

I'm sure that an art aficionado would be able to explain why there's such a huge difference in value between these paintings. To me, "Dogs Playing Poker" is the much better painting and should be worth more, but I'm not an art buff. I'm such a low-brow type that the artsy-fartsy people point and laugh at me.

But the professional art appraiser might look at various factors and should be able to come up with something. At least, one can expect a detailed explanation as to how they reached their opinion of what something is worth. It would still be subjective, but at least it would have something of substance to back it up.

It seems we're not covering new ground.
I've nothing to add.

Stevicus · Apr 15, 2021

Revoltingest said:
It seems we're not covering new ground.
I've nothing to add.

Very well.

Kooky · Apr 16, 2021

Revoltingest said:
Some do.
But I see fairness & equality (of opportunity, not outcome) as
simply desirable....also compatible with any economic system.

And by "fairness and equality", we are of course talking about CEOs being able to raise their wage to any number they like.

$70,000 salary CEO is doing just fine

Pragmatic Libertarian

Pragmatic Libertarian

Veteran Member

Pragmatic Libertarian

The world is on fire

Veteran Member

The world is on fire

Pragmatic Libertarian

The world is on fire

Pragmatic Libertarian

Veteran Member

Pragmatic Libertarian

Pragmatic Libertarian

Veteran Member

Pragmatic Libertarian

Veteran Member

Member

Pragmatic Libertarian

Veteran Member

Freedom from Sanity