 |
| |
|
|
Ming
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
But I find it less outrageous than big bosses indeed, for a simple reason: these artists and sportsmen aren't the ones who decide the wages of others.
|
So what... that's their job as bosses... and many of the wages they decide are fair.
quote:
They don't decide to layoff people.
|
They also hire people. Remember, they are running a business. The idea of business is to make money, and that means laying off people and hiring people as the market dictates. I don't think people are owed a lifetime job at a company. If you want to argue that capitalism sucks, fine. But the reality is, under capitalism, somebody has to make those kind of decisions... and those people get paid big bucks to make them.
quote:
They are not the foremost advocates of a system where the weak can go die in the gutter (I don't know if they do this in the US, since they have won, but they sure do in France).
|
I think sports and movie stars making big money are advocates of the system that allow them to make that kind of money. In communism, they wouldn't be able to do that 
I don't see them giving all their money away to keep people from dieing in the gutter. And heck, isn't the number one capitalist, Bill Gates, the LARGEST giver to charity. Your broad sweeping generalizations are just that... but I guess they sound good to you
quote:
The day the big bosses bundle their salary raise with their employees' is the day I'll respect them.
|
I would agree that top management pay should be based on results... and if they succeed, they should get the big bucks. But I have no problem with them making the big bucks.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Skanky Burns
|
 |
Skanky Bastard Quartermaster
Aug 2001
time: 14:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnT
It's stunning, the lack of threads protesting George Lucas and his $400million in earnings in FY 2000, his $250million in FY 2001, his $200million in earnings for FY 2002, and his $185million in FY 2003, isn't it? If my math is correct, that gives him $1,035,000,000 in earnings in the past four years. |
He put the capital up for the movies he made, he took the risk on himself and the community payed him the money through sales of the movie. The money he received is in direct proportion to the sales made.
quote:
Hell, even dead celebrities earn more than their living CEO counterparts. |
Their contribution to society is unquestionable. And again, the money they 'receive' is in direct proportion to the sales made.
Contrast those two situations to CEO's. Company performance has very little to do with their earnings.
Therein lies the outrage.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ming
So what... that's their job as bosses... and many of the wages they decide are fair.
They also hire people. Remember, they are running a business. The idea of business is to make money, and that means laying off people and hiring people as the market dictates. I don't think people are owed a lifetime job at a company. If you want to argue that capitalism sucks, fine. But the reality is, under capitalism, somebody has to make those kind of decisions... and those people get paid big bucks to make them. |
I understand there are people hired to run a business. It is normal that a business has people at the helm. My problem is NOT that there are people at the helm.
My main beef is that the people at the helm, who pretend they can't raise wages, who in France pretend the welfare state is too generous... well that these people are so generous with themselves. My other problem is that they tend to see the people out of their circle as resources (who deserve as little layoff compensation, as little job security as possible), while those in their circle are friends, who somehow deserve millions of dollars as compensation after leading a company to its doom.
There is a strong "circle" effect among the economic elites. And this is why they feel perfectly justified in bettering their situation.
quote:
I think sports and movie stars making big money are advocates of the system that allow them to make that kind of money. In communism, they wouldn't be able to do that
I don't see them giving all their money away to keep people from dieing in the gutter. And heck, isn't the number one capitalist, Bill Gates, the LARGEST giver to charity. Your broad sweeping generalizations are just that... but I guess they sound good to you |
In France, the big shots of capitalism want the welfare system dead. I truly wonder if there is any American capitalist supportive of it.
quote:
I would agree that top management pay should be based on results... and if they succeed, they should get the big bucks. But I have no problem with them making the big bucks. |
I have problems with people making too much money for them to use, but that's not the debate of this thread.
My problem is that these people are fundamentally self-serving capitalists, and that they should be accountable. My problem is that these people are extremely generous with themselves, while explaining it is impossible and unrealistic to raise the wages / quality of life of others.
At least sportsmen generally avoid political advocacy, and they're not in position of saying "Sorry people, there is no money this year... except for us".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnT
It's stunning, the lack of threads protesting George Lucas and his $400million in earnings in FY 2000, his $250million in FY 2001, his $200million in earnings for FY 2002, and his $185million in FY 2003, isn't it? If my math is correct, that gives him $1,035,000,000 in earnings in the past four years.
And Albert is concerned because some CEO is making $4million?  |
Red herring. 
Besides, you are comparing top tier income of one group to average income of another group.
Two fallacies in one post.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ming
It seems that people are looking at a limited number of examples, and painting all CEO's as worthless pond scum.
Yeah... some are... But most are honest businessman doing their jobs. |
And looking for their interest, like anybody does in a capitalist system. Is it any surprise that unaccountable people, who decide of their salaries, raise their salaries? Well, it doesn't surprise me. I don't even think they are evil to do so. I happen to think, however, that they need to be held accountable, so that it is not possible for them to (rationally) abuse their power.
There is scum among execs, but they aren't all scum. However, save for a few business-monks, they are self serving and look for their interests first. Hence the importance of making them accountable.[/QUOTE]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
debeest
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ming
It seems that people are looking at a limited number of examples, and painting all CEO's as worthless pond scum.
Yeah... some are... But most are honest businessman doing their jobs. Yeah some companies, Enron and others participated in major fraud, and should be held accountable, that doesn't mean that every company acts in a similar fashion. |
The AVERAGE CEO's pay has jumped dramatically over a fairly long period now, while the average worker's pay has been pretty stagnant.
Do you have any reason to think that CEOs are doing a vastly better job now and are far more important to the success of their corporations than they used to be, while the workers are no better and no more important than they used to be?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-05-2004 18:23
|