bobheck
Disco still sucks.
OK, I am going to wiggle out of my no-politics pledge a bit. Before you guys boo me, I am going to focus on economic issues. I really don't want this thread to degrade into Bush or Obama bashing, that is NOT where I want to go.
Here it goes.
Recently Obama issued an executive order freezing his staff pay and also making sure no one made over 100,000 per year, or something close to that -- the details are really not germane to this discussion.
That got me to thinking, should the government have authority and use it to limit the pay of corporate executives and just pay inside a corporation in general.
As I get older, I find myself growing more and more toward centralization of control than I was in my younger years. Twenty years ago I would have puked at the 'damned pinko commie' idea of government having any say in what corporations pay their people.
The thinking back then was - pure capitalism has been the engine and framework that made America great and the number one economy in the world. Well, that is just about 100% true. But, then something happened. Enron, MCI, the economic collapse. You see, the 'free market' going unchecked is what caused the economic collapse were are in now.
My feeling is, years ago, people on average had a lot more integrity than they do now. Greed in corporations then ran amok and people were just making millions and billions and ripping off customers and shareholders blind. The thing is, the corporations got so powerful that the 'little people' had little choice but to use their services or products, and it became a monopoly of sorts for many corporations, and the people in power took absolute advantage of that fact.
Is someone in a corporation worth 100,000 times a lower employee? True capitalism would say it does not matter, the market will set the price. I say bullshit (sorry), but I do. If the employees in the company had a say, do you think the janitor who works for $20,000 a year (and is important to the corporation) would say yes to a CEO making $400,000,000 per year? I think not.
At one time I was an executive in a very, very small corporation, but I still had to make hiring decisions. When we hired a guy to do a front-desk type of job, the CEO wanted to know what is the least we could legally pay. I confronted him and said I wanted to know the most we could reasonably pay. But that is just me, I guess. I could not pay someone minimum wage and look them in the eye, knowing I could pay them more. I honestly could not.
I hate this mentality of paying people the least you can get away with. If you want quality employees, pay them a decent wage, dammit.
Ok, so, should the government be able to set limits on pay to employees? I never thought I would hear myself say this, but I say yes. Something like total compensation to highest paid person (value of ALL compensation in any form) cannot be more than 10 times (insert debate here over what actual correct amount should be) that of lowest paid person. You wanna pay your CEO 2,500,000 per year -- fine, but your janitor is going to make 250,000.
Any thoughts?
Here it goes.
Recently Obama issued an executive order freezing his staff pay and also making sure no one made over 100,000 per year, or something close to that -- the details are really not germane to this discussion.
That got me to thinking, should the government have authority and use it to limit the pay of corporate executives and just pay inside a corporation in general.
As I get older, I find myself growing more and more toward centralization of control than I was in my younger years. Twenty years ago I would have puked at the 'damned pinko commie' idea of government having any say in what corporations pay their people.
The thinking back then was - pure capitalism has been the engine and framework that made America great and the number one economy in the world. Well, that is just about 100% true. But, then something happened. Enron, MCI, the economic collapse. You see, the 'free market' going unchecked is what caused the economic collapse were are in now.
My feeling is, years ago, people on average had a lot more integrity than they do now. Greed in corporations then ran amok and people were just making millions and billions and ripping off customers and shareholders blind. The thing is, the corporations got so powerful that the 'little people' had little choice but to use their services or products, and it became a monopoly of sorts for many corporations, and the people in power took absolute advantage of that fact.
Is someone in a corporation worth 100,000 times a lower employee? True capitalism would say it does not matter, the market will set the price. I say bullshit (sorry), but I do. If the employees in the company had a say, do you think the janitor who works for $20,000 a year (and is important to the corporation) would say yes to a CEO making $400,000,000 per year? I think not.
At one time I was an executive in a very, very small corporation, but I still had to make hiring decisions. When we hired a guy to do a front-desk type of job, the CEO wanted to know what is the least we could legally pay. I confronted him and said I wanted to know the most we could reasonably pay. But that is just me, I guess. I could not pay someone minimum wage and look them in the eye, knowing I could pay them more. I honestly could not.
I hate this mentality of paying people the least you can get away with. If you want quality employees, pay them a decent wage, dammit.
Ok, so, should the government be able to set limits on pay to employees? I never thought I would hear myself say this, but I say yes. Something like total compensation to highest paid person (value of ALL compensation in any form) cannot be more than 10 times (insert debate here over what actual correct amount should be) that of lowest paid person. You wanna pay your CEO 2,500,000 per year -- fine, but your janitor is going to make 250,000.
Any thoughts?
