Tea Party v. Constitution

The Druids Grove combined Off Topic Forum. Politics, science, random oddities - discuss them all here. - Low Moderation
User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Tea Party v. Constitution

Post by Tudamorf » Tue Nov 23, 2010 1:51 pm

erianaiel wrote:Oooh. Shall it be 'Special Selection', 'Divine Mandate' or 'Genetic Superiority' to justify these millions of income ond bonusses?
You didn't answer my question.

If you come up with a business plan that takes a $2 billion (soon to be dead) company and turns it into a $285 billion company, how much do you think you should be paid?
erianaiel wrote:But the answer that I believe is true is: No, I do not think that it requires any special or unique -skill- to attain such a position. You will have to be part of the current elite to be -invited- to one, but I have yet to see any evidence that the people who almost ran our collective economies into the ground were any more intelligent, skillful or plain and simple special to hold the positions they did.
What elite was Steve Jobs part of prior to running Apple?

And he didn't run his company into the ground. His successor did after he was forced out, and when he was finally reinstated he turned into the second most valuable company in the world.

You really think that doesn't require skill?

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Tea Party v. Constitution

Post by Tudamorf » Tue Nov 23, 2010 1:53 pm

Palarran wrote:It is possible to support a decrease in income disparity without supporting income equality, you know.
When you start saying that no one should ever be entitled to $10 million (which isn't really that much money), you've crossed the border and descended into Marxism.

Fyyr
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:32 am

Re: Tea Party v. Constitution

Post by Fyyr » Tue Nov 23, 2010 10:06 pm

erianaiel wrote:
Oooh. Shall it be 'Special Selection', 'Divine Mandate' or 'Genetic Superiority' to justify these millions of income ond bonusses?

I will leave it to you to find out what those three faulty reasonings actually are, though I will give you a hint that the first is a heresy, the second a discredited basis of government and the third, well, would not want to invoke Godwin's law about that one.

Eri
Well, I don't know about in your country.

But here it is a matter of persuasion and negotiation.
Someone attempts to persuade the owners of a company(the shareholders) that he or she can run the company in such a way, that would warrant their salary.
It is a negotiated amount.
The owners, or their delegates, either approve of or disapprove of the salary.

Disapproval happens all the time, much more often than approval. That is when CEO types are fired, or are not hired. And then they start the process again over at another company.

The knowledge of not only what is persuasive, but also the ability to persuade, and to negotiate that is part of the job description. Not just what gets them hired in the first place.

Tudamorf's example of Jobs, is a perfect example. He not only persuaded the company to take him back. But he has persuaded millions of Apple product users to buy Apple products. What is his salary, a dollar a year. He has persuaded the company to allow him to take most of his compensation in essentially investments and perks. And they have persuaded him to likewise take a dollar a year salary, and investment perks. That is negotiation. A skill that very few people possess. But it is a skill which is rewarded, highly in demand, and low in supply.

User avatar
Zute
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:50 pm

Re: Tea Party v. Constitution

Post by Zute » Tue Nov 23, 2010 10:26 pm

Actually, it's more like reciprocity. I sit on your board and I'll vote to inflate your wages beyond belief if you do the same for me.
Formerly known as Panamah

erianaiel
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:33 am

Re: Tea Party v. Constitution

Post by erianaiel » Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:18 pm

Tudamorf wrote:
erianaiel wrote:Oooh. Shall it be 'Special Selection', 'Divine Mandate' or 'Genetic Superiority' to justify these millions of income ond bonusses?
You didn't answer my question.
Why would I?
It is not as if your 'question' has much to do with what I wrote. You just presumed that what I wrote meant something in particular and refused to reconsider even after I told you you were wrong about your presumptions. In other words, you set up a loaded question and I am not going to play into that by answering.


Eri

erianaiel
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:33 am

Re: Tea Party v. Constitution

Post by erianaiel » Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:25 pm

Zute wrote:Actually, it's more like reciprocity. I sit on your board and I'll vote to inflate your wages beyond belief if you do the same for me.
That is the 'generous' interpretation.
The vicious one is that the world of CEO's and high finance runs on blackmail.
(i.e. these CEOs are effectively threatening "If you do not pay X million annually plus Y million in bonus plus Z milllion in severance pay, then you will not be able to have one of us 'special' CEOs to give yot company international standing'. The companies are threatening national governments "If you do not give us special priveleges and excemptions we will move our operations to a different country that is more amenable to our demands.")


Eri

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Tea Party v. Constitution

Post by Tudamorf » Thu Nov 25, 2010 5:44 pm

erianaiel wrote:
Tudamorf wrote:
erianaiel wrote:Oooh. Shall it be 'Special Selection', 'Divine Mandate' or 'Genetic Superiority' to justify these millions of income ond bonusses?
You didn't answer my question.
Why would I?
It is not as if your 'question' has much to do with what I wrote.
You wrote that CEOs aren't worth their pay.

That it takes no special skill to attain the position of CEO of a major company.

That it takes no special skill to hold that position and run the company.

That CEOs are simply chosen from the "current elite".

These are almost your exact words from the past few posts, aren't they?

And I offered you the example of Steve Jobs, who disproves each and every one of your assumptions.

Even when you consider stock options and all other sources, he has proven that he is worth his pay, 100 times over. That is a claim that very few employees in any field can make.

He has proven that he has special skill, by taking a company that was almost dead and turning it into the second most valuable one in the world.

And he came from no elite.

You're dodging my question, not because it's irrelevant, but because it conclusively disproves your ultraliberal propaganda that anyone who is rich and powerful must, by definition, not merit that position.

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Tea Party v. Constitution

Post by Tudamorf » Thu Nov 25, 2010 5:49 pm

erianaiel wrote:The companies are threatening national governments "If you do not give us special priveleges and excemptions we will move our operations to a different country that is more amenable to our demands."
This is no different from the situation of a very good worker demanding a raise from his boss, or else he'll work for someone else.

Are you suggesting that people should be slaves to their bosses, or to their governments?

erianaiel
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:33 am

Re: Tea Party v. Constitution

Post by erianaiel » Tue Nov 30, 2010 5:58 am

Tudamorf wrote:Are you suggesting that people should be slaves to their bosses, or to their governments?
You really do not see any colour between black and white, do you?


Eri

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Tea Party v. Constitution

Post by Tudamorf » Tue Nov 30, 2010 2:08 pm

erianaiel wrote:You really do not see any colour between black and white, do you?
If a person is forced to work for another person and isn't allowed to seek better employment (not "can't get as a result of circumstances," but just "isn't allowed"), what would you call it?

I'd call it slavery.

Post Reply