That's supposed to be Fantasy and Philosophy smooshed together, in case you couldn't decipher that.

Anyway, we're learning more and more about how to slow down aging and can probably do it without too much deprivation (calorie reduction) right now, although stuff still hasn't made it to human trials.

If this stuff proves out, then human lifespan could be extended by around 25%, and it'd probably be good healthy life, not life as many elderly experience it with loads of disabilities (except at the very end). And you won't have to have the discipline of a CRONie (Calorie reduction with Optimal Nutrition follower) to do it. Finding the cause of aging (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2008/11/rodent-of-the-3.html).

So if this were something that was made available to the human race, or at least the wealthier countries, shouldn't we implement some population stabilization strategies to cope with what'll probably end up being a burgeoning human population?

What sort of population controls could a democracy like ours implement? A tax on children? Free birth control?

So if this were something that was made available to the human race, or at least the wealthier countries, shouldn't we implement some population stabilization strategies to cope with what'll probably end up being a burgeoning human population?Well for starters, a population burgeons when breeding rates go up, not when longevity increases. Breeding causes an exponential increase whereas longevity does not (assuming your science fiction anti-aging pill does not affect menopause, which may in turn affect breeding rates).

The problem with longevity is not so much the mild increase in population, but that the fact that those people are a huge drain on our resources. People taking your anti-aging pill will still drink, smoke, eat junk food, not exercise, and so on. We'll still need to hook them up to overpriced machines and have overpriced hospital personnel push overpriced drugs, just for longer.

Second, the wealthier countries need their people.

Wealth brings a gradual decline in birth rates, and if you don't (as we do) import people in addition to manufacturing them, you're going to end up short on supply. Look at Japan as a prime example (they don't import, and manufacturing is way down), but also Western Europe, Australia, and other first world countries have fertility rates below 2.

It's the poorer countries that are breeding out of control, and that we need to stop, before they overwhelm us and the world's resources. Instead of sending them food, enabling them to breed even more successfully, we should be establishing women's rights around the world, and sending the women cheap and easy sterilization techniques.

Of course China is way ahead of curve, showing great foresight by stopping its population problem early, when it was manageable. Most countries aren't, and wait until it's too late, and solve their problems through war, genocide, disease, famine, and so on. All the more reason China is on its way to being the next superpower.

Finding the cause of aging (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2008/11/rodent-of-the-3.html)By the way, I think Jared Diamond is right on this one, the search for "the" cause of aging is a futile and misguided effort. I know Americans love quick fix pills, but don't hold your breath for the anti-aging pill.

What sort of population controls could a democracy like ours implement? A tax on children? Free birth control?

How do you propose to pay for all those extra people in retirement? Extended life can only be paid for, in the US, by population growth...

Personally, I think anyone on SSI should recieve a coupon for a case of alcohol and a carton of smokes.. LOL

Also, my grandmother passed away on September 31 this year. She was 96. My impression was that she was VERY ready to go... There is something to be said to live with vitality.

Well, the retirement age would have to move up. Shouldn't be an issue if overall people's health and vigor maintains itself. Although, people are eating so poorly that they get sick with diabetes and so on pretty early in life nowadays. However, from what I've read, this particular drug seems to even make that much less likely. So y'all can continue feeding yourselves hummingbird food (i.e. sugar water) and escape the consequences, unless you're very unlucky.

Problem is, those people who live a very long time, seem to do so because they have something special going on with their genetics. Lots of them seem to have some pretty nasty habits that would kill off most of us. Like that French lady that lived to be over 120, she was a smoker most of her life.

Population rates could go up if longevity increases. First off, women might be fertile longer. If the births don't go down, then population will increase.

Even if it doesn't increase where the drug is available, population will continue to grow in third world countries, who will inevitably migrate to better places.

Well, the retirement age would have to move up. Shouldn't be an issue if overall people's health and vigor maintains itself.People aren't maintaining their health in their 30s. What makes you think they'll do it in their 90s, or that they'll even want to work then? If I make it to my 90s, I certainly won't want to keep working to support lazy people; I will have earned the right to have them support me.Problem is, those people who live a very long time, seem to do so because they have something special going on with their genetics. Lots of them seem to have some pretty nasty habits that would kill off most of us. Like that French lady that lived to be over 120, she was a smoker most of her life.Genetics + luck + selective reporting by the media. Not every smoker gets lung cancer. And you don't hear about the people with great longevity genetics who died at 60 from lung cancer because they were dumb enough to become tobacco addicts.Population rates could go up if longevity increases. First off, women might be fertile longer.Does your magic drug resequence DNA to eliminate menopause? That is one hell of a drug.

People aren't maintaining their health in their 30s. I already addressed that. Reread.
What makes you think they'll do it in their 90s, or that they'll even want to work then? If I make it to my 90s, I certainly won't want to keep working to support lazy people; I will have earned the right to have them support me.Genetics + luck + selective reporting by the media. Not every smoker gets lung cancer. And you don't hear about the people with great longevity genetics who died at 60 from lung cancer because they were dumb enough to become tobacco addicts.Does your magic drug resequence DNA to eliminate menopause? That is one hell of a drug.
I don't know about fertility. It wasn't mentioned in the rat studies I read. Like I mentioned in the first posting, this is fantasy at this point.

But the way the drug works, if you skipped reading the article, was it kept the epigenetic layer from accumulating errors. Those errors are caused by environmental things which would include poor diet and most likely smoking and environmental toxins too.

Google epigenetics if you feel like learning something interesting today. It explains basically how come identical twins aren't actually identical, even though they have identical genes.

But the way the drug works, if you skipped reading the article, was it kept the epigenetic layer from accumulating errors. Those errors are caused by environmental things which would include poor diet and most likely smoking and environmental toxins too.Menopause is not caused by a genetic error, and although it is triggered by age, it is not a result of being too old to reproduce. It's a self-imposed barrier human women have evolved to maximize their reproductive success. The healthiest woman alive will still undergo menopause, because her female ancestors did too, and they outcompeted the other females who didn't.

I already addressed that. Reread.Where? You simply implied that this magic drug is a panacea, and that can't possibly be true. Even if it somehow prevents cancer, heart disease, and diabetes (and it won't), people will still be fat and lazy. They'll just have more time to get fatter and lazier. A 500-lb 90-year-old who can barely get out of bed is not going to be a very productive citizen.

Where? You simply implied that this magic drug is a panacea, and that can't possibly be true. Even if it somehow prevents cancer, heart disease, and diabetes (and it won't), people will still be fat and lazy. They'll just have more time to get fatter and lazier. A 500-lb 90-year-old who can barely get out of bed is not going to be a very productive citizen.
Not only that but the drug is gonna be hugely expensive.

Just for an example.

We are moving into to Sepsis Season.
As a natural matter of course, if you get severely septic you will die.
With just modern medicine, you had a 60% chance of dying.
We now have two drugs, one really, will move that down to 5%.
One is Xigris. A 72 hour dose of which costs wholesale 45K or so.
The other is IgG, whose efficacy is still questioned, is about double that.

http://www.xigris.com/index.jsp
A genetically engineered drug, that definitely increases normal lifespan.

Last year, we had 4 bags of Xigris going at the same time, one an illegal alien, one a short order cook, one a affluent mother, one a young doctor and a mother. All of them lived.

Where? You simply implied that this magic drug is a panacea, and that can't possibly be true. Even if it somehow prevents cancer, heart disease, and diabetes (and it won't), people will still be fat and lazy. They'll just have more time to get fatter and lazier. A 500-lb 90-year-old who can barely get out of bed is not going to be a very productive citizen.
Although, people are eating so poorly that they get sick with diabetes and so on pretty early in life nowadays. However, from what I've read, this particular drug seems to even make that much less likely.

If you want more detail search for "rats diabetes sirtuins". Or perhaps I'll trip across the article soon.

Here's one: http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2008/10/23/sirtris-red-wine-chemical-to-take-back-seat-to-potent-diabetes-drugs/

If you want more detail search for "rats diabetes sirtuins". Or perhaps I'll trip across the article soon.

Here's one: http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2008/10/23/sirtris-red-wine-chemical-to-take-back-seat-to-potent-diabetes-drugs/The new drugs, like resveratrol, are designed to activate genes linked to the production of sirtuins, which have shown in early studies to increase metabolic function and essentially mimic the benefits of consuming fewer calories.See, that's my problem.

Nature already knows how to make organic chemicals and resveratrol, fairly cheaply, and does so in many plant species. If it were some wonder drug that cured all ills and extended life at no cost, don't you think we would have evolved the ability to produce it for ourselves? Especially men, given our reproductive strategy?

Don't you think rats would have evolved that ability?

Don't you think SOME animal would have evolved that ability?

It's difficult to take the details seriously when the broad outlines make no sense, from an evolutionary perspective.

A 72 hour dose of which costs wholesale 45K or so.Soon you guys are going to (over)charge so much, it will no longer be worth it. Americans' lives are worth a lot less these days.

http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/ArtAndPhoto-Fronts/USNEWS/080710/AP_ValueLife.gif

Don't you think rats would have evolved that ability?

Don't you think SOME animal would have evolved that ability?Why? Evolutionarily living to be really, really old isn't going to ensure you have more children or ensure your children's success that much more than someone who dies in their 50's with grown children.

However we already see this effect in humans. We have people that live to be extraordinarily old and seem immune to the effects of certain environmental things that eventually take most of us down much younger. We have a burgeoning population of centenarians. It seems the SIRT1 and possibly the SIRT2 gene are responsible. Actually we already CAN trigger that gene in animals (and we think people), but you have to cut their calories by 30%.

Why? Evolutionarily living to be really, really old isn't going to ensure you have more children or ensure your children's success that much more than someone who dies in their 50's with grown children.Of course it is. Why do you think humans can live to 115, when women can comfortably reproduce a dozen times by their mid 30s? Why do you think human women evolved menopause, effectively self-sterilization for half their adult lives, whereas men didn't?

Longevity is a great evolutionary bonus. That's why we among the most long-lived animals on the planet, and only a handful (such as some whales and turtles) live significantly longer than we do.

The only reason we don't all live forever is that it would be prohibitively expensive (biologically) to do so, and from an evolutionary perspective we're better off using that energy breeding, then dying, and letting our offspring breed.

So if some simple organic molecule could increase life span so drastically at no cost, we would have it by now, or at least some species would have it by now.

We've had that ability for forever, with CRON, but the trade off was at the expense of fertility. And we're just not built to enjoy starving ourselves.

We have a burgeoning population of centenarians. It seems the SIRT1 and possibly the SIRT2 gene are responsible.No, we have many more people living to 100 because in the past 100 years, for the first time in history, we have made it possible for the average person to have plenty of food, to live in peace, and to have access to medical technology that can cure common fatal disease and delay death significantly.

Those genes you speak of, they got from their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, and so on. And if you do a survey of the centenarians' distant ancestors, you'll probably find that those people did not live to 100.

I'm not saying that genetics isn't a factor -- it is -- but it's not the main reason people are living to 100 now. Someone born today, choosing the right lifestyle, has a good chance of living to 100, even if they don't have your magic anti-aging genes.

We've had that ability for forever, with CRON, but the trade off was at the expense of fertility. And we're just not built to enjoy starving ourselves.Okinawans (http://www.okicent.org/study.html) practice hara hachi bu, eating only until they're 80% full. They are the most long-lived people on the planet, appear to live very happy lives, and have incredibly good hormone profiles in old age.

I'm not suggesting that this is evidence that calorie restriction actually works in humans as it does in rats, since Okinawans have many other factors in their favor. Just that calorie restriction need not be equated with misery and starvation.

Soon you guys are going to (over)charge so much, it will no longer be worth it. Americans' lives are worth a lot less these days.



Wouldn't you spend 45K to live, if the odds were that you were gonna die anyway, without it?

Besides, like I said, that is the wholesale cost. That is from Lilly. There are wages and RD and testing costs that have to be recouped.

A typical PharmD alone makes 150K a year. And more if they graduated from a top school, which cost about 200K or so. I don't know how much molecular chemists and biologist, and geneticists make, but I am sure that it is more than what a pharmacist makes.

I don't work for Lilly.

The point is, that any maintenance medications, especially anything developed by geneticists, is gonna cost a ton of money.

Wouldn't you spend 45K to live, if the odds were that you were gonna die anyway, without it?Definitely, since the taxpayers/other insured are footing the bill. It's always fun to spend someone else's money.Besides, like I said, that is the wholesale cost. That is from Lilly. There are wages and RD and testing costs that have to be recouped.LLY made almost $3 billion in profit on $18.6 billion revenue last year. And paid several of its officers over $4 million each (including $9.3 million to the CEO).

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drotrecogin_alfa#Marketing_controversy) also lists LLY's less than kosher marketing practices of the drug.

Cry me a river.The point is, that any maintenance medications, especially anything developed by geneticists, is gonna cost a ton of money.That's one thing we agree on, any new drug of any value is going to cost a ton of money.

Definitely, since the taxpayers/other insured are footing the bill. It's always fun to spend someone else's money. I suppose that is mock sarcasm coming from an apparent Socialist.
I thought you agreed that costs should be shared amoungst the group for the individual.


LLY made almost $3 billion in profit on $18.6 billion revenue last year. And paid several of its officers over $4 million each (including $9.3 million to the CEO). Ya, well much of that profit is put back into the company, to possibly discover the types of drugs that this topic is about. New drugs that extend human life, and increase quality of life.

Wikipedia also lists LLY's less than kosher marketing practices of the drug.

Cry me a river. I read what you linked to. I don't understand what your point is. When Xigris was first introduced, it WAS limited in availability compared to the number of sepsis patients.

The side effects are real. There is a discrepancy with the cost. The efficacy is a proven fact in the clinical and hospital environment.

But the effects without it are much more severe. Each of the patients I mentioned would be dead without it. We would be without a mother, a farm worker, a doctor, and a short order cook if not for it. They would have surely died, they were that sick. And unresponsive to all other interventions.

The textbooks on sepsis don't mention how fast it can be. One patient walked into the ER complaining of flu like symptoms. 6 hours later she had MODs and moved into DIC already. It was that rapid.

The worst thing, is there is no apparent epidemiological commonality. No vector, nor route of transmission. No lifestyle influence. No piercings to get the Strep A into the blood. It could happen to anybody, at any time.

I suppose that is mock sarcasm coming from an apparent Socialist.
I thought you agreed that costs should be shared amoungst the group for the individual.Definitely. Every successful government implements a socialized medical system, and that's how it should be.

At the same time, though, we have to prevent the tragedy of the commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons) from allowing the medical industry to rip everyone off.Ya, well much of that profit is put back into the company, to possibly discover the types of drugs that this topic is about. New drugs that extend human life, and increase quality of life.You mean, to make even more profit. Net income is what's left over after expenses, including R&D.

Definitely. Every successful government implements a socialized medical system, and that's how it should be. Yet it is our system, the capitalist system, which actually invents these new things, like Xigris.

If Xigris had been created in Cuba or Russia or France, you might have a point. It was not, and you don't.

At the same time, though, we have to prevent the tragedy of the commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons) from allowing the medical industry to rip everyone off.You mean, to make even more profit. Net income is what's left over after expenses, including R&D. Profit is the reward for risk. I know what profit is.

Risk at losing time, money, and assets. I know what risk is.

A patent for a pharm invention is only good for 20 years now. After that, it can be made by anyone interested generically. But without the initial pioneering by the original inventor and patent holder, it would never have been invented in the first place. Without the profit motive, Lilly would not have invented Xigris in the first place. And I know personally 4 people who would be dead now if that were the case.

Tuda, may write a document, detailing that if you become severely septic, that you do not want Xigris administered. You will die, of course, if you do. But that is your right. For those who want the drug, it is available. And obviously it was not available before it was invented by Lilly. It will most likely save the patient's life. As a Socialist, don't you find it rewarding that you are helping, in a collective effort, of disseminated costs, keeping other people alive with your labor and money?

Yet it is our system, the capitalist system, which actually invents these new things, like Xigris.Actually, our system is socialized, just in a very screwed up and inefficient way (EMTALA, socialized employer-based coverage, private insurance regulations, lawyers). You should know that.

I'm not saying they don't have the right to make a profit. I'm saying they are price gouging, and they are doing it because they can, because our broken system lets them. The same broken system that lets you charge me $1,000 if I sit down on one of your hospital beds, and that forces me to pay a lawyer tax when I buy health insurance.

Well, I am sure you know that pharmaceutical companies are not socialized. They are not part of the socialized healthcare system that both of us know.

They are autonomous, except where they are regulated by the infantile and inept FDA.

It costs you $1000 because there were 30 people in front of you who did not pay their bills when it was 30 dollars. Your $1000 is only paying for those who don't pay, and were not ever gonna pay.

I know those people, they are my friends.

But that is Socialism at its finest. 30 people who wont pay 30 bucks, so you get hit with the 1000 buck bill. I thought you liked Socialism. The funny thing, is that my friends won't even thank you for your contribution. They feel that YOU owe it to them.

I, on the other hand, will at least thank you. For my paycheck. Thanks Tuda. Keep it comin'.


edit,,don't get me wrong. The lawyer tax is in there too. You are correct in that. Not just in lawsuit moneys, or anything. But in preventatives. 50 percent of my job in health care is documentation. At least 90 percent of that is NOT for other healthcare team members or for patient care, but for lawsuit protection in the future. Nurses, the nurse profession, is THE largest single profession in the US. And almost half of everything they do is for your lawyer tax.

Well, I am sure you know that pharmaceutical companies are not socialized. They are not part of the socialized healthcare system that both of us know.You mean, the taxpayers didn't pay $45K a pop for those sepsis drugs?

The drug companies make their money through socialism. They'd be bankrupt without it.It costs you $1000 because there were 30 people in front of you who did not pay their bills when it was 30 dollars. Your $1000 is only paying for those who don't pay, and were not ever gonna pay.Funny how it doesn't cost nearly that much in every other first world country with socialized medicine. Your beds must be gold plated, or a hell of a lot more comfortable.

I don't mind as much paying you your check, since you do the beneficial service of creating stacks of paper that are used to lower the lawyer tax that I shouldn't have to pay in the first place.

You mean, the taxpayers didn't pay $45K a pop for those sepsis drugs? I don't know what Medicare or insurance companies pay(the hospital) for the drugs. If it is less than what the hospital pays, then they will charge more for other things, of course, to make up the difference.

y patient who got the IgG paid for it herself.

The drug companies make their money through socialism. They'd be bankrupt without it. No, not at all. They risk capital to bring a product through invention to market. Then sell the product. It is the patients and payers who disseminate the costs throughout a greater sized population. There would be people who could buy the drugs independently of insurance or Medicare. 2 of the 4 patients I had could have. But they chose to have insurance instead.

The cook and the farm worker would have died without Medicare and US Socialized medicine. If they did not get the drug.

I don't know what you are arguing, really. Under a non capitalist system, the drug would not have been developed. Under our mixed system 4 people are alive. Under a pure capitalist system, only 2 would be. Under a pure Socialist, all 4 would be dead.


Funny how it doesn't cost nearly that much in every other first world country with socialized medicine. Your beds must be gold plated, or a hell of a lot more comfortable. Like you said, we have the lawyer tax. That no other country has to pay. We essentially have twice as many nurses than we need to do patient care. And nurses make a lot of money, due to demand and expertise.

Actually our beds might as well be gold plated. They cost in excess, to the hospital, of 100K each. We wanted to buy 10. But we could only afford 3 new ones. Through a special deal, we were able to get 4 new ICU HillRom beds.

I don't mind as much paying you your check, since you do the beneficial service of creating stacks of paper that are used to lower the lawyer tax that I shouldn't have to pay in the first place. Well, most of it is electronic now, of course. But that just means that there are IT teams, programmers, and server farms, and back up tape storage, etc. Instead of bankers boxes full of paper in storage. Same difference. Just that IT load increases costs in healthcare just as it does everywhere else.

ost of the upgrades are mandated by government, or JCAHO(Joint Commision).

KP just rolled out HealthConnect in Roseville and Sacramento. It is a very comprehesive system. Way cool. But has its inherent and systemic problems itself.

Lodi has a piece of crap, and cheap system, but just had to spend 200K last year in additional add-ons. But Lodi is running in the red actually. So that is all they can afford.

I don't know what you are arguing, really.That without our socialist system, those companies wouldn't make anywhere near what they make now.

Oh also, that your whole industry conspires to rip the rest of us off.

Definitely, since the taxpayers/other insured are footing the bill. It's always fun to spend someone else's money.LLY made almost $3 billion in profit on $18.6 billion revenue last year. And paid several of its officers over $4 million each (including $9.3 million to the CEO).
And lets not forget how much money they're spending on sending doctors to Hawaii, and paying for "lectures" and junkets to promote their drugs. Right now, there's no requirement to disclose that, but it must be substantial. I've recently heard of several cases of doctors who claimed they had no conflicts of interest coming into the hundreds of thousands of dollars of payments from drug companies.

All that graft is expensive!

Right now the US spends a larger % of our GDP on health care than any other country... is our health care better than all the other countries out there? I'd say no.

I spoke too soon, the estimate here is 19 Billion a year (http://articles.latimes.com/2007/aug/06/health/he-drugintro6)on wooing doctors.

Right now the US spends a larger % of our GDP on health care than any other country... is our health care better than all the other countries out there? I'd say no.Don't understate the matter. We spend DOUBLE the average of first world countries who have much higher life expectancy and lower rates of disease than we have (e.g., Japan, U.K., France, Germany, and Canada).

That what you get when you inject unregulated capitalism into a system that's funded by socialism: thieves who steal taxpayer dollars.

That without our socialist system, those companies wouldn't make anywhere near what they make now.
Of course they wouldn't. We would not have drugs like Xigris either, so how could they?

Without the profit motivation there would be no investment. There would be no money to pay geneticists, bioengineers, biochemists, and scientists to invent this stuff.

Can you name a significant medical invention or pharmaceutical or drug that has been produced by a Socialist system?

I can think of only one, radial karatotomy. Which was discovered by accident(not R&D).

We have accidents too, minoxidil and sildenafil. Whose side effects are more marketable(profitable) than the desired effect.

Name one significant drug invented in the last 30 years which was produced by a non profit motivated socialist organization.

Can you name a significant medical invention or pharmaceutical or drug that has been produced by a Socialist system?
Penicillin was developed in a university. Read "The mold in Dr. Florrey's Coat".

However, the pharmaceutical companies weren't interested in the slightest until one of the scientists working for the Univ figured out how to mass produce it, then they practically stole it.

The pharmas have a loooong history of acting despicably. I've often toyed with the notion they should be nationalized or even nationalized by a consortium of nations.

Without the profit motivation there would be no investment. There would be no money to pay geneticists, bioengineers, biochemists, and scientists to invent this stuff.You don't seem to understand the difference between making a profit, and price gouging.

People sometimes think that I and the others worked on penicillin because we were interested in suffering humanity. I don't think it ever crossed our minds about suffering humanity. This was an interesting scientific exercise, and because it was of some use in medicine is very gratifying, but this was not the reason that we started working on it.
—<cite>Howard Florey, Baron Florey,</cite>


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Walter_Florey

The pharmas have a loooong history of acting despicably. I've often toyed with the notion they should be nationalized or even nationalized by a consortium of nations.
Again, I ask. How do you motivate people to spend hundreds of thousands in schooling to become biochemists, bioengineers, geneticists, and scientists if there is no profit motivation.

How do you get people to invest in pharmaceutical companies, which has enormous costs in R&D and testing, and with the risk of probable failure(most medicines never make it to market), if there is no reward of profit?

If medicines like Xigris are better produced in a socialized medicine system, then why are there NO progressive or innovative medicines coming from all of the world's existing socialized medicine systems that exist already?

Or are you like Tuda who has problems with producing these medicines in the first place, because the patients should be allowed to die instead. Thus saving the social commune of two problems, increased healthcare costs and over population.

then why are there NO progressive or innovative medicines coming from all of the world's existing socialized medicine systems that exist already?According to this list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharmaceutical_companies), Germany, Japan, the U.K., France, Switzerland, Denmark, Israel, Belgium, and the Netherlands all have very profitable drug companies.

And all those countries have well-functioning socialist medical care systems, the kind of you rail against.

And they also all have far lower costs of medical care per patient (less than half on average), higher or at least the same life expectancy as the U.S., and lower rates of many diseases.

I don't get it. Are you ignoring the obvious just out of self-interest (because wouldn't have a job, or one paying nearly as much, if our system worked)?

You seem to be confused.

You are confusing the pharmaceutical industry with medical industry with the nursing industry. Notwithstanding that.

On a short scan of your pharmaceutical list, I did not notice one that was not a corporation. They all appear to be owned by shareholders, and making profit. Every one of them is a profitable capitalist corporation.

I don't know how accurate that information is. Number 20 is P&G. They have net income(profit) which exceeds their net revenues. How does one do that? Golden egg geese in the back of the factory? Akzo Nobel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akzo_Nobel) is a paint company.

Regardless, your point is that there are socially owned pharmaceutical companies in these socialized countries and that they don't make any profits. Other countries do pharmaceuticals better than the US. Yet these companies are capitalist corporations owned by shareholders, and they make profits...Just cursory glancing, except for P&G, theses so-called(by you) socialist pharmas are making equitable profits percentage wise as those based in the US.

I am not railing against anything.

I am stating a fact. It is very hard to motivate people to do things without money. I seriously doubt that you would do the work that I do for what you make. I KNOW you would not do my job for what I make. How much a nurse makes is very much based on supply and demand. The supply of nurses willing to do the work is balanced by how much they make(just as any other job). I don't make any profit by working. Well besides all the esoteric profits of the job, like saving lives, keeping people alive, all that mushy gooshy stuff.

It is so very very hard to motivate people to make lifesaving drugs like Xigris without money and profit, so very very hard, that YOU, Tuda, are completely unable to come up with a single example. I did a better job at that than you did, I at least provided the RK example. You produced 0 examples.

You seem to be confused.You seem to be confused.

Where did I say that we should socialize drug companies or that drug companies aren't entitled to a profit?

I said a) we should socialize our medical system, and do it properly, and that b) drug companies are currently ripping us off, thanks to our existing broken system.

The countries I mentioned are perfect examples of where you can have successful drug companies, making profit, as well as a functioning socialist medical system that ensures the drug companies make a profit but do not price gouge consumers, as ours do to us.

I seriously doubt that you would do the work that I do for what you make. I KNOW you would not do my job for what I make.In 2007, the highest paid public employee in all of the City and County of San Francisco was Christian Kitchin.

He earned $350,324, more than any department head.

He works as a nurse at the county jail.

In 2007, the highest paid public employee in all of the City and County of San Francisco was Christian Kitchin.

He earned $350,324, more than any department head.

He works as a nurse at the county jail.
You are more than welcome to become a nurse.
You are more than welcome to be a nurse and work at a jail or prison.

If you don't like what he does, or what he makes. Fire him. Get someone else to work for less. I don't make that much, and is hardly typical of what nurses make.

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2008/03/8000_sf_employees_take_home_ov.php

Kitchin is a county jail nurse and his base pay is $117,262. He made $216,277 in overtime and $16,785 in "other pay", which is classified as "compensation for special working conditions or one-time pay-outs of unused vacation and sick leave to employees leaving the city."
I take that back, his base salary for his normal work week is pretty close to what an experienced nurse could make.

But you are going to begrudge NOT paying him OVERTIME for working the load of 2 or 3 people. Well, it looks like you don't have to fire him afterall, the 17K was him cashing out his sick and vacation time. He was obviously not calling in sick or taking vacation, because he was fn working so much.

Where did I say that we should socialize drug companies or that drug companies aren't entitled to a profit?
Posts 24 through 30.

I said a) we should socialize our medical system, and do it properly, and that b) drug companies are currently ripping us off, thanks to our existing broken system. As you have discovered, if you look at the companies which you linked. They are not part of any medical system, they are not socialized, like you suggested.

Pharmaceutical companies are chemical companies. They have a right to their inventions and to profit from those inventions, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution(at least in our country). The founding fathers knew about the incentives to innovation and invention by money and profit, that is why they wrote it in to the body of the Constitution. How did they know something that you don't know. Until recently they only had the right to the invention for 14 years, now it has been recently changed to 20(mostly because the testing phase eats up 10 years).

The countries I mentioned are perfect examples of where you can have successful drug companies, making profit, as well as a functioning socialist medical system that ensures the drug companies make a profit but do not price gouge consumers, as ours do to us. Your example does not do that.

Those are all multinational corporations. You have made no connection between socialized medicine and capitalist pharm companies and profits, other than geography. Which says nothing.

If you don't like what he does, or what he makes. Fire him.Where did I say I want to fire him? I'm just pointing out that he makes good money, for working a fairly easy job, even though it is practically round-the-clock.

If you say $117K (and great benefits) is what the typical experienced nurse makes in base pay, that sounds fairly cushy to me. You might even be able to afford a home in San Francisco with that salary, and a partner. In the California boonies you can live very comfortably on that, alone.

Plus, of course, you get the psychological benefits. Not many easy-to-get jobs give you that much power over people, and some love that. It's the same reason people line up to become cops, even though the job is dangerous and the pay can sometimes be lousy.

Posts 24 through 30.Read them again. In none of those posts did I say drug companies should be socialized. And I did not say they are part of the medical system I want socialized; I said they are abusing our broken system.Pharmaceutical companies are chemical companies. They have a right to their inventions and to profit from those inventions, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution(at least in our country). The founding fathers knew about the incentives to innovation and invention by money and profit, that is why they wrote it in to the body of the Constitution.Since you seem to have made up your own straw man argument, perhaps you'd like to argue with yourself about it.

I don't see ONE post in this entire thread saying that Communism and non-profit governmental ownership is the correct way to structure our drug companies. Except for your posts, that is.

Where did I say I want to fire him? I'm just pointing out that he makes good money, for working a fairly easy job, even though it is practically round-the-clock. Where did you get the idea that it was a fairly easy job?
Half the males in my class dropped out because it was too hard.

If you say $117K (and great benefits) is what the typical experienced nurse makes in base pay, that sounds fairly cushy to me. You might even be able to afford a home in San Francisco with that salary, and a partner. In the California boonies you can live very comfortably on that, alone. Really, for working in the Jail in SF? I don't think the risk(all of them) is worth that much. I don't make that much. Last time I heard numbers prison RNs start at 65 an hour. At that rate you would think that nurses would be lining up. So where are they?

Plus, of course, you get the psychological benefits. Not many easy-to-get jobs give you that much power over people, and some love that. It's the same reason people line up to become cops, even though the job is dangerous and the pay can sometimes be lousy. Again, where did you get the idea that it is easy to get?
Chemistry, Pharmacology, and Pathophysiology would knock most cop candidates out, I suppose. Hell, how many of them could memorize the Krebs/Citric Acid cycle, and that is only a pre-requisite, not even part of the curriculum.

Plus, like I said, most macho guys are too macho to do digital extractions or bowel care. How many guys do you know, well you do live in SF, so this might be anomalous, would pull chit out an old man's ass with their fingers?

Read them again. In none of those posts did I say drug companies should be socialized. And I did not say they are part of the medical system I want socialized;Drug companies are chemical companies first. They are not part of the medical system, not the way that you are thinking.

You do not want pharmaceutical companies socialized?
How do you expect to lower how much profit they make then?

And what parts DO you want to socialize then? Pharmaceutical companies are THE most profitable enterprises. My hospital is running in the red actually.


I said they are abusing our broken system.
You have said that they are making too much profit. I know you think that. But other than socializing them, how do you stop that>??? They are capitalist corporations owned by shareholders(all of them). Traditionally, the way that you, in a capitalist system, cause price or profit decreases is by not buying their products, by decreasing demand. That won't happen, so how else do you suggest that be done?


I don't see ONE post in this entire thread saying that Communism and non-profit governmental ownership is the correct way to structure our drug companies. Then I am missing your point.

I don't know how you are going to change the price of patented inventions without socialist force.

Blow the patents, perhaps? That is the only other way I can imagine.

I suppose your confusion is that you think they are all the same industry.

You like analogies.

Here is one, which I suppose will work for you.

anual, the illegal immigrant Mexican, cutting your lawn does the work. He works for Joe's Landscaping. He has bought a lawnmower(probably made in Mexico) from Snapper. He bought the pickup from Ford, and the trailer from Johns Trailers. And he buys gas to run it from BP. And takes the clippings to the Environmental Management company to dispose of them.

You think they are all the same entity. They are not. Of course, they are all connected, but not like you seem to connect them.

For you seem to be saying that because BP makes a tidy profit, that you get to say that Manual is not worth what he is paid.

I am stating a fact. It is very hard to motivate people to do things without money.Oh, by the way.

Arnold Schwarzenegger works for free.

Steve Jobs works for $1.

Rick Wagoner and Alan Mulally have told Congress that they will gladly accept Steve Jobs's salary.

All these people must not have gotten the libertarian memo.

Really, for working in the Jail in SF? I don't think the risk(all of them) is worth that much.You have obviously never been to a jail, or prison hospital. Some of them, like the California Medical Facility at Vacaville, are really quite nice. I visited there many years ago, and the buildings were clean, surrounded by beautiful gardens and perfectly manicured lawns. You'd think it was some elite country club, not a prison.

There is also a lot less risk working in a prison, than working at a regular hospital. Almost all prisoners are not violent or dangerous; those few that are, are housed in levels with super-strict security. In a prison, patients can't come in with weapons and attack you, you know exactly who your patients are and what their background is, and there is heavy security everywhere at all times.

By the way, when I was there, the guards and workers were basically shooting the breeze, while earning good pay. The worst thing I can say for most of the places is that they're often located in the middle of nowhere and the air can be a bit stuffy.Again, where did you get the idea that it is easy to get?Two years, or a college degree, plus a test. Right? That's very little training for a fairly well-paid position.

Yeah, you have to know some basic chemistry, which means you have to be decent at sciences and be able to memorize. Lots of people can do that, though.

Still, it's relatively little compared to what you have to do to get other positions that pay $120K.Plus, like I said, most macho guys are too macho to do digital extractions or bowel care.Well, if most of half the population voluntarily opts of the work because they're too insecure, it makes the job all the less difficult for someone else to get, doesn't it?

You do not want pharmaceutical companies socialized?
How do you expect to lower how much profit they make then?Simple. By lowering the amount the socialist system compensates them.

We do this with Medicare: for procedure X, you get paid $Y. No price gouging. Surprisingly (from your wacko libertarian perspective), it works quite well.

The drug companies will accept lower profits, because they will have to, and it beats being poked in the eye with a sharp stick.

Just to clarify: they will remain private, for-profit companies. However, their primary customers (federal and state governments and insurance companies) will force them to lower their prices, or go out of business.

Oh, by the way.

Arnold Schwarzenegger works for free.

Steve Jobs works for $1.

Rick Wagoner and Alan Mulally have told Congress that they will gladly accept Steve Jobs's salary.

All these people must not have gotten the libertarian memo.

Is this a joke?

You are either misinformed of their wealth and compensation or you misinformed as to my level of gullibility.

Is this a joke?

You are either misinformed of their wealthWhat does their wealth have to with it? Drug company executives are also very wealthy. Does that mean they don't need the profit incentive anymore? and compensationWhich one are you saying isn't true?

You have obviously never been to a jail, or prison hospital. Some of them, like the California Medical Facility at Vacaville, are really quite nice. I visited there many years ago, and the buildings were clean, surrounded by beautiful gardens and perfectly manicured lawns. You'd think it was some elite country club, not a prison.

There is also a lot less risk working in a prison, than working at a regular hospital. Almost all prisoners are not violent or dangerous; those few that are, are housed in levels with super-strict security. In a prison, patients can't come in with weapons and attack you, you know exactly who your patients are and what their background is, and there is heavy security everywhere at all times.
By the way, when I was there, the guards and workers were basically shooting the breeze, while earning good pay. The worst thing I can say for most of the places is that they're often located in the middle of nowhere and the air can be a bit stuffy. You make it sound nice.
I still wonder why they have to have such high rates of pay in order to convince people to work for them.

Two years, or a college degree, plus a test. Right? That's very little training for a fairly well-paid position. If it were as easy as you think, don't you think that there would be more people getting into the biz?

Yeah, you have to know some basic chemistry, which means you have to be decent at sciences and be able to memorize. Lots of people can do that, though. Where are they then? We are in a nursing shortage. One of the reasons your nurse in SF got or had to work overtime.

Still, it's relatively little compared to what you have to do to get other positions that pay $120K.Well, if most of half the population voluntarily opts of the work because they're too insecure, it makes the job all the less difficult for someone else to get, doesn't it? 120K is not starting salary for nurses in hospitals or the clinical setting. I doubt it is starting for the SF jail. The nurse was obviously experienced, and had many years of service under his belt.

Less difficult? More difficult to fill the position is the truth. I don't think insecurity is a factor. They are incapable or unwilling to do the work.

The demand and number of positions is much larger than the supply. I assumed that you were aware of that.

You make it sound nice.
I still wonder why they have to have such high rates of pay in order to convince people to work for them.One factor, I'd think, is that you have to agree to live in the middle of nowhere. You probably also need special clearances and training that not everyone can get. And I'm sure a lot of women nurses never consider it because they fear the whole idea.

All I can tell you, is that I know they are paid a very good wage, and no one appeared distressed, unhappy, or overworked.Less difficult? More difficult to fill the position is the truth. I don't think insecurity is a factor.You said most men are too macho (insecure) to be a nurse. That means that most of half the population won't apply. If you will apply, that means you're competing against a much smaller pool of applicants, which means it is easier for you to get the job.The demand and number of positions is much larger than the supply. I assumed that you were aware of that.I wasn't. But it makes sense. As you explained, it attracts a lot more women than it does men. And unlike 50 years ago, women can do almost any job today, meaning the pool of people wanting to do that job will be smaller. Nurses probably have to work odd schedules too, whereas most people like to work 9 to 5. None of this, however, means the wage is too low.

What does their wealth have to with it?

Schwartzenegger is independently wealthy. Movies, restaurants, and his development companies.

The other CEOs that you mention have very lucrative stock options and bonus beyond mere salary. You know this, don't play dumb. And please don't think I am so dumb as to buy your silly remarks and musings on $1 salaries.


Drug company executives are also very wealthy. Does that mean they don't need the profit incentive anymore?Which one are you saying isn't true?
What is this? Continued shotgun approach.

Drug CEOs are not the talent which invents or innovates new drugs. It is biochemists, biophysicists, bioengineers, and scientists.

How are you gonna get them to work for your socialist drug companies unless you pay them what they think they are worth. How are you gonna motivate them to go through school? They work hard at what they do, so they don't have to clean up sh1t at an SF jail, and so they get paid much more than the average nurse.

And how are you gonna get people motivated to invest in the companies in the first place unless they hope to make a profit from the risk.

One factor, I'd think, is that you have to agree to live in the middle of nowhere. You probably also need special clearances and training that not everyone can get. And I'm sure a lot of women nurses never consider it because they fear the whole idea. Not really. SJ County Jail is right next to SJ County Hospital.

ule Creek is as close as Sac.
DV is close.

It takes me as long to drive to KP in Sac in my house, as it does from downtown SF to San Quentin.
You could commute from SF to Vacaville, I suppose in about an hour. It would be a reverse commute, so less than the other way.

Bingo, right on the money on that last sentence.

All I can tell you, is that I know they are paid a very good wage, and no one appeared distressed, unhappy, or overworked. Good for them.

You said most men are too macho (insecure) to be a nurse. That means that most of half the population won't apply. I don't think it is insecurity. Though that is definitely a factor for those before they even try to get into nursing school. I was also specifically talking about after getting exposed to what the job entails. That is when half of those you had already gotten past the whole 'male nurse/Gaylord Fawlker' thing. I know I got a lot of weird looks BEFORE I got in from other males. Maybe I was just over sensitive to it back then, I don't notice it now.

ost of the male nurses that I work with are not gay.

I was speaking more on the nature and scope of the actual work. I suppose that many men think that the work is 'below' them, too dirty, and scatological.

If you will apply, that means you're competing against a much smaller pool of applicants, which means it is easier for you to get the job.
Again, you are mixing up your contexts. On one hand you are talking about how much nurses are overpaid, then you change it to say that it is easy to get into, then you then revert back.

1) Hospitals HAVE to pay what they pay to attract nurses.
2) Jails and prisons HAVE to pay what they pay to attract nurses.
3) Becoming an RN is not easy.
4) There are not enough RNs for the amount of patients or beds.
5) The number of patients is going to grow, as Baby Boomers age, faster than the rate that all the US nursing schools can produce them.
6) When all the Baby Boomers die, there will be glut of nurses, and then pay will decrease.
7) I will be dead or retired by then, so nah nyah nyah.

I wasn't. But it makes sense. As you explained, it attracts a lot more women than it does men. And unlike 50 years ago, women can do almost any job today, meaning the pool of people wanting to do that job will be smaller. Nurses probably have to work odd schedules too, whereas most people like to work 9 to 5. 12 hour shifts from 7PM to 7AM. How many people do you know beside me that would work that? I think all the 8-5 workers are fn pussies, actually.

None of this, however, means the wage is too low. I did not say that it was too low.

I have worked less hard with less required knowledge and made more though. But I like this now. Otherwise I would be doing something else.

Schwartzenegger is independently wealthy. Movies, restaurants, and his development companies.So?

Are you saying that profit isn't important to rich people?

So drug companies don't need to make profit, because they're rich? Neither do oil companies, or rich investors, who bring capital to all of the above? Kind of pokes a gigantic hole in your libertarian credo, and makes you almost socialist.The other CEOs that you mention have very lucrative stock options and bonus beyond mere salary.Maybe you're confusing Steve Jobs with Eric Schmidt or some others, who take $1 base salary plus stocks and/or bonuses. But as far as I know Steve Jobs really takes $1 in total compensation.

Sure, he already has a crapload of stock, and exercises stock options he already has. But that goes back to my question above: do rich people no longer need profit to be innovative?Drug CEOs are not the talent which invents or innovates new drugs. It is biochemists, biophysicists, bioengineers, and scientists.But drug company profits consist of the money left over AFTER paying all those people, as well as everyone else that helped like the company, such as advertising agencies, Congressional lobbyists, and doctors (kickbacks).

If Eli Lilly made $0 in profit, all your biochemists, biophysicists, bioengineers, and other scientists would still get the full salary which you say is required for them to be innovative.And how are you gonna get people motivated to invest in the companies in the first place unless they hope to make a profit from the risk.Who said they aren't going to make a profit? They're just going to make less profit. There will still be profit, there will still be investors, and there will still be drug research.

But as far as I know Steve Jobs really takes $1 in total compensation.


Well, then that makes sense to me now.

You are wrong.

Look it up.

If you don't, I will after I get back from an ER party. And post it when I get back.

Night Tudamorf. Have a drink on me. I will have one in your honor.

/cheers

I was speaking more on the nature and scope of the actual work. I suppose that many men think that the work is 'below' them, too dirty, and scatological.I do know why insecure men might not want to be a nurse, but I don't know why men, but not women, would think that. I mean, to me, surgery (hacking someone up with a knife) seems a lot "dirtier" than what you just described.Again, you are mixing up your contexts. On one hand you are talking about how much nurses are overpaid, then you change it to say that it is easy to get into, then you then revert back.I didn't say they're overpaid. You suggested they were underpaid (considering the salary to effort ratio, versus other jobs), and I explained that it's pretty good pay for the work, plus there are other benefits.

The very fact that you are doing the work, without a gun being put to your head, shows that I'm right, no?

You are wrong.How so? Unless you're counting vested stock options as current compensation.

I do know why insecure men might not want to be a nurse, but I don't know why men, but not women, would think that. I mean, to me, surgery (hacking someone up with a knife) seems a lot "dirtier" than what you just described.
Surgery is pretty clean actually.
ajor cuts are done with a Bovee. No real bleeding. There is suction when there is.
Usually there is no C diff poo to clean up.
Surgery is really cutting meat(and bone), and sewing meat.

I still think that most of them quit because they don't like cleaning poo off of 400lb strangers(or out of). And changing poo'ed on linens and pads. That the work is 'beneath' them.

y class of 80 started off with 11 men. 6 of them dropped out or failed out. 5 graduated from the original class. Women too dropped out or failed out, but not at that great a number.

I didn't say they're overpaid. You suggested they were underpaid (considering the salary to effort ratio, versus other jobs), and I explained that it's pretty good pay for the work, plus there are other benefits.

I did not say that they were underpaid. And did not mean to suggest it either. You said it was easy to get into, and cushy when you do. Both of those are wrong assessments.

The very fact that you are doing the work, without a gun being put to your head, shows that I'm right, no?
I don't mind working hard.
Besides, 95% of my coworkers are female.

I don't know how accurate that information is. Number 20 is P&G. They have net income(profit) which exceeds their net revenues. How does one do that? Golden egg geese in the back of the factory?

PG 2006 Net Income is 8,684.00. Gross Revenues is 68,222.00. I dont see a break out of income from drugs and income from other stuff. Also, PG does not make your typical pharmacutical.

Oh, by the way.

Arnold Schwarzenegger works for free.

Steve Jobs works for $1.

Rick Wagoner and Alan Mulally have told Congress that they will gladly accept Steve Jobs's salary.

All these people must not have gotten the libertarian memo.
These CEO's aren't working for $1. They have stock options and golden parachutes, company jets, company cars, and god knows what else that cost in the millions of dollars.

However, I do have to say I like the idea of CEO's working for stock options rather than salary and/or bonuses. At least then they share in the prosperity, or lack thereof, of their company.

I always thought politician's salaries ought to be connected to the GDP.

These CEO's aren't working for $1. They have stock options and golden parachutes, company jets, company cars, and god knows what else that cost in the millions of dollars.Well, stock options they've already got, and golden parachutes they don't have (and may never). The car companies said they'll sell their private jets as part of their bailout deal, and said they'd work for $1.

What are you saying, they are doing their job just for the privilege of having the company car and a nice office?

Some positions are desirable for reasons other than money.I always thought politician's salaries ought to be connected to the GDP.Why should they share in our profits when they have little or nothing to do with acquiring them?

Why should they share in our profits when they have little or nothing to do with acquiring them?
You could turn that around and say, "Why shouldn't they share in the pain that they may well have had a hand in creating?"

As far as CEO's working for a dollar... well, I just can't believe you're actually that gullible.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=6378775&page=1
...But this handful of executives still earned millions of dollars through stocks and other forms of compensation, according to data provided by the Corporate Library, a research firm that tracks executive compensation based on company filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Usually salary is only a fraction (Half or less) of a CEO's compensation.

Even so, in the 1970's the average CEO made about 25x what the average worker did. Nowadays it is like 500x as much. So they'd have to work for free for a lot of years to make up for that.

You could turn that around and say, "Why shouldn't they share in the pain that they may well have had a hand in creating?"You are working under the highly flawed assumption that politicians dictate the economy. They don't. You and I do, more than they do.As far as CEO's working for a dollar... well, I just can't believe you're actually that gullible.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=6378775&page=1And you, like Fyyr, can't tell the difference between CEOs that take $1 plus bonuses and other benefits (e.g., Eric Schmidt) and those that don't. (I guess it's just easier to lump all those people together, since you don't like them.)

Look at the article you linked. It cites examples of NO pay other than $1 and vesting of stock options, which they were given many years earlier. In effect they are NOW working for that $1.

So I ask you again, why are they doing all that hard, stressful work? For the privilege of the company car/jet?

Why is Arnold Schwarzenegger working for free?Even so, in the 1970's the average CEO made about 25x what the average worker did. Nowadays it is like 500x as much.And what is the market value of those firms today (excluding the outlier crisis of the past year), compared to the value in the 1970s?

What is the tax rate today, compared to the tax rate in the 1970s?

If big company A and B merge, and there is now one CEO making the sum of what CEO A and CEO B made, you've doubled the average CEO salary while keeping the low-end workers' salary constant. Yet, the CEO's salary would still be fair relative to the job he does, growing the company's market value.

Also, if you drop the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 36%, the company has more incentive to pay the CEO more, because the CEO will be keeping most of that money.

It's silly to assume that the CEO-to-menial-worker compensation ratio must remain constant.

It cites examples of NO pay other than $1 and vesting of stock options, which they were given many years earlier. In effect they are NOW working for that $1.
They'd be working for the increased shares they receive as time passes and their stock options vest.

They'd be working for the increased shares they receive as time passes and their stock options vest.Ok. But that only gives the incentive to do the minimum necessary to not get fired.

Is that what you think Steve Jobs does?

No, they're working for free (sorta) because they believe that they can increase the values of their options. The car manufacturer CEO's went kicking and screaming down this route. The Ford CEO wasn't about to give up his salary, but apparently he had a little 'talkin' to from the board of directors and became more amenable to it. Plus they've probably still got to be working to be able to exercise those options.

Frankly, I think most of them operate more like the Dread Pirate Roberts than like any sort of philanthropist.

I'm willing to believe that perhaps a few of them just enjoy their work and want to show improve the morale of their work force by giving up excessive pay, but I doubt most are.

Arnold... dunno. He could be a dedicated public servant or perhaps he just loves power more than money.

I don't know about you but I'm seriously doubt anyone in my profession is making 500x what they made in the 1970's. CEO's were getting paid insane money regardless of whether or not their companies did well.

No, they're working for free (sorta) because they believe that they can increase the values of their options.But we investors do that too, just by pushing a few buttons on our computers. I don't have to be the CEO of Apple to make money on my Apple stock.I don't know about you but I'm seriously doubt anyone in my profession is making 500x what they made in the 1970's.Is anyone in your profession making/doing something that's 500 times as valuable as it was in the 1970s?

No, but the CEO's aren't either. They made their companies worth increase 500x the same way I made my house's worth increase 300x.

No, but the CEO's aren't either.Do you have any evidence to back that up?

The value of a CEO's services is proportional to the value he brings to the company. A CEO of a successful $10 billion company should certainly earn more than the CEO of a $10 million company.

Do you have any evidence to back that up?

Well sure, look at how the price earnings ratios have increased over the last 20-30 years. Used to be that no one would invest in a company that was trading more than 14x or so over it's actual earnings. But with the influx of a lot more capital into the markets (from 401ks and mutual fund companies making investing pretty much available to everyone) there's a lot more money to invest and the P/E went up, sometimes even above 40x. So is the company actually worth what it says it is worth? Well sure, as long as the stock market is strongly bullish. How much influence over that does the CEO have?

Chart of PE Ratios: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SP500pe.svg/

And if you think that CEO's are responsible for all the success of their company then surely you must think that all CEO's right now must be a really bad lot all of a sudden as their companies are all doing very poorly.

Were all the energy companies making excellent profits because their CEO's were amazingly brilliant men? No. They were making insane profits because speculators were driving up the price of oil to high prices.

Well sure, look at how the price earnings ratios have increased over the last 20-30 years.But that's good for the company. The perceived value, and earnings potential, is the key.How much influence over that does the CEO have?Quite a bit. For example, a couple of months ago, when someone spread a rumor that Steve Jobs had had a heart attack, Apple's stock price sank 10% in 10 minutes. In other words, just on that unsubstantiated rumor, the shareholders thought the company was suddenly worth $9 billion less.

I don't know about you, but I think he has earned his $1.And if you think that CEO's are responsible for all the success of their company then surely you must think that all CEO's right now must be a really bad lot all of a sudden as their companies are all doing very poorly.Well, there's a massive general market downturn, which means everyone is going to suffer, good and bad. However, there are still companies that beat the averages, meaning either they make more, or right now, are losing less.

Now, you can't absolve them from blame from "general market downturn" and give them all the credit from the opposite. Actually, they deserve credit from neither.

There's a saying in the financial world about a "rising tide lifts all boats", or something to that effect. In other words, even a rusty old dingy is going to get lifted. And we've had a big high tide that lasted a whole lotta years.

I remember before the .com collapse I had some acquaintances that were bragging about their investing acumen and how one woman had quit her job to become a day trader. In the back of my mind I'm thinking, "A monkey with a dartboard of stock symbols could make money in this market". People couldn't wait to put their money into anything new. Remember those crazy IPO's? That was back when the PE/R was about 40.

In that crazy environment, everything went up. Just like right now everything is going down. It is the emotions of mass groups of people, like that guy in the Foundation Triology studied (remember that?), that determines what happens on the stock market for the most part.

Even I, the Financial Ice Queen, experience emotions when it comes to my portfolio. I felt really left out of the lovely profits from the energy sector, I probably wasn't though, I have mutual funds that probably held those stocks. But I wanted more! So just before everything crashed hard, I bought into an IETF (finally found one that didn't require an enormously huge initial investment). Bleh. I also remember feeling that urge to buy when everyone else was. When the housing market was going nuts, I wanted to buy another house (can't afford to). When everyone was panicking and selling, I felt the panic too but didn't sell. Had a friend who did though, on the advice of his financial advisor... that guy needs to be fired.

If this is happening to me, who tends to be pretty well-read and self-aware, what is it doing to all the other folks out there who aren't?

Of course, real events or really insanely bad decisions by executives can affect a stock, but I'd say that probably most of a stock's value has to do with things outside of the control of any CEO.

Figure out their worth like you would a privately held company. Then lets talk about how much a CEO is really worth. But you have to take the insanity of the stock market out of it.

There's a saying in the financial world about a "rising tide lifts all boats", or something to that effect.Except it doesn't.

Take, for example, the case of AMD and Intel, two companies in the same industry, in direct competition. In early 2006, AMD was selling for about $40 and Intel for about $20. At the market's peak at the end of 2007, AMD dwindled to about $10, and Intel went up to $25. Today, AMD sells for about $2, and Intel for about $15.

AMD tanked badly, even in a very strong market, because of a series of very bad decisions (such as buying ATI at an exorbitant price).

There are countless other examples of stocks that's don't follow the index, either because of very bad or very good decisions.

Who's the key person who makes those decisions? If each decision you made could either cost, or benefit, your company billions of dollars, how much do you think you should be paid, if you do a good job?

Of course you can cherry pick out examples to disprove or prove whatever you want, but in general the rising or falling stock market is going to affect everyone.

You can cherry pick whatever you want to disprove or prove whatever you're want. But the real question is, did AMD's CEO still make 500x what the average AMD worker did, regardless of his poor decisions?

Of course you can cherry pick out examples to disprove or prove whatever you want, but in general the rising or falling stock market is going to affect everyone.Of course it is. But it's silly to suggest that companies just go with the flow without variation based on their individual merits. (If that were true, we'd only be buying and selling shares of one mega-index stock.) You can look up any stock's beta value to determine its correlation to the market as a whole, as well as its volatility.

I didn't cherry pick one outlier; there are many examples of this. Take Apple. In 2002, it was trading at around $7. Before the recent meltdown, it was trading around $200. Most tech stocks did not see their value increase nearly 29-fold in those five years.

And a lot of Apple's increase in value is directly attributable to its CEO. He took a company worth $5 billion and made it worth almost $150 billion in five years. How much do you think he should get paid for that, creating $145 billion in value? Does $1 sound like too much?

You can cherry pick whatever you want to disprove or prove whatever you're want. But the real question is, did AMD's CEO still make 500x what the average AMD worker did, regardless of his poor decisions?Because of Hector Ruiz's poor decision, he's no longer CEO. Even though AMD saw its brightest days with him leading it. I don't know how much the new CEO is going to be paid, because he only took the position a few months ago.

I also don't know how much the "average AMD worker" makes, when you consider all the engineers, marketing people, janitors, and so on. But it's irrelevant, for the reasons I mentioned earlier.

LOL, this thread is much different that the original post. CEO's can get bonsus voted by the board in addition to their stock options or pay. Also, recent performance is not necessarily the basis of bonsus compensation but performance from preceeding years... John Thain got rejected for a bonsus.

Companies can make a lot of money by introducing new products that people want, like Steve Jobs did. During the 90's, processors increased in speed at a tremendous rate and you could do so much more with an new machine. Today, that is not so true. Computers have become a mature industry.

I suppose it would be fun to have an investing thread for this board. Throw out ideas about investing and where to put your money.

Panamah mentioned housing prices declining and a year and half ago a coworker was closing on a home for 600k. I told him that in year's time it would be worth 20% less. Today it is worth about 40% less. Interestingly, stocks are worth about 40% less also...

Still on that 1 dollar thing, huh?

Do you really believe it?
Or do you just obfuscate the reality to make your point?

Still on that 1 dollar thing, huh?

Do you really believe it?
Or do you just obfuscate the reality to make your point?Well, in the case of Steve Jobs, it's true ($1 + vesting stock options), but that's besides the point, to the latest issue in this thread.

Even if you count his vesting stock options (~$650 million last year), it's not necessarily overpayment.

You can't justify all CEO's pay with just one example.

You can't justify all CEO's pay with just one example.How many does it take?

I'd think, considering the obscene value of his stock options, you'd consider Steve Jobs to be a worst case scenario of your theory, yet I've just shown you how he's worth it.

There are many other examples. Jeff Bezos, of Amazon.com. Jen-Hsun Huang, of Nvidia. Joe Moglia, of TD Ameritrade. Warren Buffett, of Berkshire Hathaway. And we could go on and on.

Your notion, that the CEO must be making no more than exactly X times what an assembly line worker makes, is silly, and ignores reality.

Well, regardless of your opinion, executives get to set and control their own pay and they've been quite generous with themselves at an increasing rate over the years. They often sit on one another's boards so I would imagine there's a lot of tit-for-tat going on.

It certainly is something that a lot of shareholders are getting stirred up over.


US: Big Bonuses Still Flow, Even if Bosses Miss Goals (http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13633)
US: With Links to Board, Home Depot Chief Saw His Pay Soar (http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13618) Old boys network getting perfected.
and so on

US: Big Bonuses Still Flow, Even if Bosses Miss Goals (http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13633)When "bosses miss goals," they usually get fired, or step down to avoid that humiliation (see Jerry Yang). Same goes if they give themselves bonuses when it's undeserved (see Hector Ruiz).

I'm not sure what your position is any more. Are you against CEO compensation generally, or just against the minority of CEOs who abuse the system?US: With Links to Board, Home Depot Chief Saw His Pay Soar (http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13618) Old boys network getting perfected.
and so onAnd Nardelli was ousted six months after that article was published. Thereby proving my point above.

I'm against CEO's being paid such enormous sums of money compared to their workers.

I can't quite see how you can rail against workers being well compensated but not look at their management.

As much as I disagree with Tuda on the Jobs $1 thing. Yearly salary is NOT the only compensation, no matter how many times he says it is.

I do have to agree that it really was he and his leadership and his marketing savvy that took a dying corporation and turned it around.

Even if you discount the Imac, Ibook, and Ipod. Just the IPhone alone warrants great acknowledgment. It is singular in being just about the best consumer product ever invented(well after the vibrator, of course). But both men and woman can use it out in public.

I'm against CEO's being paid such enormous sums of money compared to their workers.You still haven't explained why a CEO's total compensation has to be based on some fixed multiplier of a janitor's total compensation.

Unless you mean in the general socialist sense, that we shouldn't create such a large gap between the rich and poor, regardless of whether the rich merit their wealth.I can't quite see how you can rail against workers being well compensated but not look at their management.For one, workers are fungible and in great supply. CEOs are not.

Second, if you're talking about the car companies, it's a matter of numbers. GM has 266,000 employees, Ford 87,700, and Chrysler 58,000. Any CEO's total compensation is trivial compared to the income lost by overpaying 411,700 people $50 per hour (or whatever the number is).

As much as I disagree with Tuda on the Jobs $1 thing. Yearly salary is NOT the only compensation, no matter how many times he says it is.I never said it was.

Just FYI, new UAW workers get $12 an hour. Where do I sign up for these riches?:bonk:

Just FYI, new UAW workers get $12 an hour. Where do I sign up for these riches?:bonk:Well, someone has to support all the old UAW workers.

akes we wonder why new workers buy into the scheme at all. They should revolt, topple the UAW, and get the pay they deserve.

Just FYI, new UAW workers get $12 an hour. Where do I sign up for these riches?:bonk:

Doing what?

I made 8.10 an hour moving boxes of bleach, Chlorox, and toys from a warehouse to WalMart shelves, so that low end middle class women would not have to.

I was not union.

I would have jumped at the opportunity to rivet sheet metal for 12 an hour. I would be obscenely happy if I were 55, making 71 an hour doing exactly the same thing.

Ha ha....Suckers!!

And then retire on 70% of that per year until I died. I would be like, F YOU all, I will, you sook.