Topic: The "Occupy" Movement

[Journeyman]

Thucydides thinks ...

Just as well I was commenting on ballz then, and not Thucycides...   

[GAP]

owned 

[recceguy]

Thucydides thinks Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan are left wingers. To him 98% of the population is too left wing. Don't be ashamed of liberal and pragmatic values that deal with reality. An ideologue that openly supports the ridiculous tenets of Ayn Rand's objectivism cannot be taken seriously.

Like the gun registry?

[ballz]

It may not be noble but there's nothing wrong with it either.

No there's not and I certainly never said/meant that there was. It's a mutually-beneficial relationship. A welder does not owe any more thank-you's to his boss than his boss does to him. His boss certainly does not deserve to be held up on some pedestal as the saviour of the unemployed.

A downside of the internet is that people are judged merely upon their words.

It's not simply a matter of losing inflection and nuance, it's the reality that if it acts like a duck and quacks like a duck, people are pre-disposed to believe....

I realize and accept that when discussing things with Thucyclides I'm going to look like and quack like a left-winger. That's sort of a given, seeing how far to the right on the spectrum he's coming from.

That said, if anyone were to read my other posts that aren't contesting his points, they should know better. I have said in the Attawapiskat thread that entrepreneurship is ultimately going to be what improves their living conditions, I have suggested that small-businesses should be taxed at 0% for the first five years unless they record a certain level of profit in order to encourage entrepreneurship, and on the provincial level here in NFLD I've gone batshit insane arguing about why we should privatize the liquor industry and snow-removal/road construction, etc. EDIT: Oh yes, and cut the amount people are getting for unemployment and increase the amount of hours they need to get it. The old 10 weeks on / 42 weeks off thing does not ring well with me /EDIT. Those are clearly not left-wing arguments.

And other than pointing at Norway, I haven't even hinted that Canada should take state-control of it's natural resources, and I certainly don't think that we should. I was just pointing out that Thucyclides's frequent arguments that suggest that it's as simple as the further left you go the shittier everybody's life gets, and the further right you go the better everybody's life gets, are simply not as "absolute" as he tries to make it seem.

[Thucydides]

That said, if anyone were to read my other posts that aren't contesting his points, they should know better. I have said in the Attawapiskat thread that entrepreneurship is ultimately going to be what improves their living conditions, I have suggested that small-businesses should be taxed at 0% for the first five years unless they record a certain level of profit in order to encourage entrepreneurship, and on the provincial level here in NFLD I've gone batshit insane arguing about why we should privatize the liquor industry and snow-removal/road construction, etc. EDIT: Oh yes, and cut the amount people are getting for unemployment and increase the amount of hours they need to get it. The old 10 weeks on / 42 weeks off thing does not ring well with me /EDIT. Those are clearly not left-wing arguments.

So in other words you are arguing for exactly the same sorts of reforms that I would like to see.

Glad you cleared that up then....

[ballz]

So in other words you are arguing for exactly the same sorts of reforms that I would like to see.

Glad you cleared that up then....

Yes (to some extent), like I said before about supply-side economics many times, I just want to see it applied with some sense of reason/logic. I've admitted that in the past it's been successful, based on certain circumstances it was the right move. It's also been unsuccessful, because it was applied in the wrong circumstances. I don't want to see mutli-billion dollar corporations receive a tax break, because they will not reinvest the money, they have no reason (competition) not to just keep it and pay themselves. If they wanted the money, they'd get it from a bank.

I want to see that money instead put in the hands of people who actually need/want the money to compete, who want that money to grow their business, because they're not rich but they want to be rich, and can't get that money from the banks. In other words, small businesses.

I don't want to see blanket tax-cuts, I want to see tax-cuts applied where it's going to have the most impact. The driver of the Canadian economy are it's natural resources and small-time entrepreneurs. Aim the money at the right places, don't just hand it out without aim (aka cut the corporate tax-rate).

We all usually agree that "throwing money willy-nilly" doesn't solve problems, that's what I think blanket tax-cuts are. That is where you and I  disagree (from what I can see anyway).

[ModlrMike]

Aim the money at the right places, don't just hand it out without aim (aka cut the corporate tax-rate).

You do realize that something on the order of 90% of Canadian corporations have fewer than 50 employees, and of that most have fewer than 10? Small-time entrepreneurs do benefit from across the board tax cuts.

[ballz]

You do realize that something on the order of 90% of Canadian corporations have fewer than 50 employees, and of that most have fewer than 10?

Yes, I do, it's why I said "small business is the driver of the Canadian economy."

Those small corporations with fewer than 50 employees are generally private corporations, and have quite a different tax system from the larger public corporations that are generally talked about in elections. When they talk about cutting the corporate tax rate by 2%, it applies to both public and private corporations.

That said, the biggest advantage is the small-business tax-break, which applies for those recording revenue of $500,000 or less. The tax-break is 11% off of the corporate tax rate. Cutting the corporate tax rate by 2% saves those small corps waaaay less than $10,000 per year (it's less because 1. it's only for revenue, not profit and 2. they lose 2% off of their expenses as well... so the only way it saves a $500,000 business the full $10,000 is if they don't have any expenses that year... which is impossible...) which is dick-all and is not going to go very far...

That 2% cut to the corporate tax rate really only benefits the bigger companies, who are making much, much more revenue.

Small-time entrepreneurs do benefit from across the board tax cuts.

Barely, as described above.

EDIT: A little background info on corporate taxes for private corps in Canada...

http://sbinfocanada.about.com/od/corporatetax/a/ccpcadvantages.htm

[Thucydides]

A very nice summary:

http://inspiringyoutothink.blogspot.com/2012/01/in-defence-of-free-market.html

In Defence Of The Free Market

I made a comment on CEO pay being just fine.  I had a thoughtful individual make some points (bold), with my responses below:

It does not stand to reason that we should see justice in the distribution of wealth as it stands. (re: CEO pay @ 189 times higher than average worker pay).

I disagree with the idea that someone is entitled to earn wages of such magnitude based solely on their place in the hierarchy of a complex system such as a corporation.

I disagree with attributing a necessary connection between 'justice' and a 'gap' (in pay). For example, say Susan takes the position, "gravity lacks justice".  Lenny asks, "that's odd, why Susan?"  Susan explains, "sure, gravity allows some to juggle enabling balls to fall, crowds to cheer and people's hearts to be warmed, but I know a group of people who crashed in an airplane, and if gravity was not so cruel, they would have had a soft landing…therefore gravity lacks justice."  My point is simple. We cannot necessarily look at a gap (exorbitant pay vs. low pay or cheer's vs. cries), target the culprit (gravity, free market) and claim an injustice.  In some cases we could, but not necessarily.  Therefore, let's look at the 'culprit' behind these exorbitant gaps of pay…the free market.  Like gravity, there are certain 'laws' governing the free market, chiefly: private individuals/corporations trade goods and services at prices set though supply and demand.  The means of production and distribution are privately held.  I would argue the free market and gravity are both 'good'.  If Joe pushes Jennifer off the cliff because Jennifer cheers for the Montreal Canadians, we don't look to 'gravity' as the culprit.  We don't look to pass laws to prevent cliffs from existing.  Gravity was the mechanism behind poor Jennifer's fall, but we both know who is responsible: Joe.  The free market provides choice within the framework of legal protection of individual rights and freedoms, and private production of goods and services.  It is not the culprit.  People being idiots is the culprit.  And idiot people exist regardless of the 'system' they are under.  I understand people can choose to use the free market for evil…and they do.  However, using something for evil, does not make it evil..that is a simple logical fallacy.  Ted bashing his wife's face with roses make his actions evil, not the roses.  People's choice to operate without integrity under a free market makes them lack integrity, not 'the system' inherently lacking integrity.

I would submit top CEO pay being so high is not any more unethical (pending they did not break any laws) then average pay.
Here are the similarities between top CEO pay, and average worker pay:

1. Both CEO pay and average worker pay was based on an agreement between employer and employee.
2. Both CEO and Worker has a job description outlining their responsibility for compensation.
3. Both CEO and Worker 'do well' at their job
4. Quality of performance determines pay within a free market for high, low income earners.  If this rule is violated, bankruptcy typically follows (endless examples).
5. Bad choices for positions exist with CEO's and employees.  The free market penalizes companies to the degree and influence of the bad performance of people hired.
6. Pay increase comes from re-negotiating wages of both top CEO's and lower income earners.
7. If the 'top CEO' does not like his (chiefly men on the list) re-negotiated pay, he can choose to leave.  If a lower income employee does not like their pay, they can choose to leave.  There is no legal law forcing either a top CEO, or a lower wage earner to stay and work at a place.  Supply and Demand works within the free market to 'pay people what they are worth'.

The common denominator is private companies agreeing to compensate an individual based on a mutual agreement.

What gives a company the right to pay you $32.50 this year, instead of $29.75 from last year?  The free market allowing personal exchange of time for money based on supply and demand within the free market. 

Cool.  What gives a person the right to earn $32 500 000 this year from $29 750 000 from last year?  The free market allowing personal exchange of time for money based on supply and demand within the free market. 
Cool.

It's the same 'justice' (if you want to use that word), mechanism that allows somebody to get a raise, pay decrease or worst case terminated.

So, nobody is 'entitled', contrary to your comment above.  It is based on an agreement between employer and employee.  People at all wage levels can be hired on 'entitlement'…and I have found hard and fast that customers have little 'mercy' for poor performance based on entitlement…so companies that hire on entitlement can and should be punished by a free market unwilling to pay for that 'entitlement' service.  It is not 'solely based' on their hierarchy within the company.  If a zombie were to have 'made his way up' to CEO (to the shocking surprise of every person watching), does the board keep him there after they learn he is a certified zombie? Do they say, "well, he is now our CEO and is therefore entitled to earn wages of huge proportions."?  NO!  They say, "he is a zombie, failing to do his job, he's fired.  The company is out for profit, so a zombie who fails also violates our need for profit." It is a contradicting statement to say that a corporation is out for profit (said below) and pays solely based on place in hierarchy. If the sole reason is 'place in company', the performance for profit is by definition not a reason.  If performance violates profits, do we still keep the CEO and violate our 'rule for profit'?  If yes, we are not just 'out for profit'.  If no, then the sole reason for hiring/paying CEO is not solely place in company…can't have it both ways.

Top CEO pay is structurally the same as average pay.  The free market chooses based on an agreement between owner and employee governed by supply and demand.  It is no more 'wrong or unjust' for Frank to make millions as it is for you to make thousands.  It is the same dynamic at work.  If we decry, 'unfair advantage', 'favoritism', 'sexism' or any host of injustices, share them and someone will likely be able to articulate how they fail to constitute a defeater to a free market being a basic good thing.

Therefore, as 'just' as it is for us to agree to $30k/year based on supply/demand so to is it as 'just' for Debbie to earn $30 million based on supply and demand.

You would call this (incredible pay) an achievement or success, but what gives a man the right to control so many others?

What do we mean by 'control'?  Do we mean lead by directing others to perform to best serve customer? If so, people choose to accept direction when they take on a job description for agreed upon pay.  An individual using their free will to make a choice to allow an employer to direct them 'gives' that employer the right to direct them, and this is not bad.  It's based on a mutual agreement.  Mommy is grocery shopping and asks a stranger, "Sir, can you open the door for me?  I got my hands full." The stranger uses his free will to say, 'sure', then obeys the request.  Two parties exercising free will to mutually choose to offer/exchange time and talents is good, not bad.  Nobody is 'exploited' because there is mutual fee will coming into agreement.   

Power over countless people's lives and over countless resources (nationally or abroad), and all within the legal framework of our "free market". Is this power morally, ethically, socially justified?
Power is limited to job description and mutual agreement.  Resources is based on private ownership.  Legal framework of free market and protection of rights and freedoms is our law.  Morally, ethically justified? I would argue yes. And this would be based on a basic worldview (another post).

The bottom line is that the CEO's have no room for conscience when decisions need to be made. The love of fellow men is not included in the equation. Business management at that level is about profit, survival, stockholders' interests, the machine begins to look like what it is. It has no love.

They do have room for conscience.  Acting ethically and valuing people can easily be done while making profit. I argue, the best way to make a long term profit.  However, the company is about trading goods and services, not love. That is correct.  Gravity is about pulling us towards the earth…not about love either.  I think there is a God behind gravity who is love (i.e God who put gravity in place for our benefit).  Similarly, God gave us a platform to create, grow, develop and learn, within the context of free will and protection of private property/personal rights/freedoms.  The free market is a good expression of our ability to exercise the said mentioned freedoms (how socialism fails to do this, another post).  When the natural result is profit, you are right, stockholders get it (that is, what is not reinvested or bonused out…they also get the losses).  Now the question becomes, personally, what do they do with their wealth?  Are they going to pull a Bill Gates and give billions away, or horde and keep only for themselves? What a tragedy if the latter.  It's not the free markets job to love. That would be people's job. My objective as a CEO is to serve customers and get results.  I do this within the context of helping people and (trying my best) to value people.  I try to love people by valuing them and enabling them to release the gifts and abilities inside of them.  A benefit of releasing these gifts is often a satisfied customer and increased compensation to those advancing.  To me it is simple logic, do people grow, get smarter, take on more responsibility  and make the company more money when they are valued, or devalued?  I say valued. Let the free market be free. If anyone wants to work at a company where the focus is on valuing people and making a profit there are some 'free market' options:

1. be thankful you work at such a place
2. be the change at the place of work you want to see in others
3. leave and find a company that values people and makes a profit
4. start your own company that focuses on valuing others while making a profit

[E.R. Campbell]

A very nice summary:

http://inspiringyoutothink.blogspot.com/2012/01/in-defence-of-free-market.html

Nice enough but wrong in two key points:

1. Most CEOs who are paid more than, say, 75:1 are not earning what we, the owners (shareholders), are paying them; and

2. Ethics is never a nice to have and it does not depend upon making a profit. One is either ethical or one is a crook, or, at least, a bum. And crooks and bums are not good CEOs.

[GAP]

Excellent article...kinda makes the occupy movement's argument look like a collander....

[ballz]

It's a good article, and it really does point out that people are the problem, which is true. But there is only one way to prevent the "human" element from ruining the entire beauty of supply & demand... and that's through legislation and regulation. As Mr. Campbell stated earlier, the problem is "people aren't perfect."

Here's a few places where the "theory" meets "reality"

"If performance violates profits, do we still keep the CEO and violate our 'rule for profit'?  If yes, we are not just 'out for profit'.  If no, then the sole reason for hiring/paying CEO is not solely place in company…can't have it both ways."

It is, unfortunately, the "yes." These Boards, CEOs, CFOs, etc do not solely act in the best interest of the company's "profit." They also act for their own best interest and their own profit. CEOs frequently sit on the Board of Directors for other CEOs, for example, and pay each other accordingly.... This inflates the cost of a CEO or CFO or some other executive, and well... brings us to where the US is, and to where Canada is apparently headed...

' "If a zombie were to have 'made his way up' to CEO (to the shocking surprise of every person watching), does the board keep him there after they learn he is a certified zombie? Do they say, "well, he is now our CEO and is therefore entitled to earn wages of huge proportions."?  NO!  They say, "he is a zombie, failing to do his job, he's fired. '

Actually, they quite frequently do. Look what happened in 2008 when all that bailout money was paid, and the CEOs, who had clearly failed, did not just get to keep their job, they received bonuses from that bailout money.



I love entrepreneurship and I love supply & demand... but it's not perfect and it never will be, but good legislation and regulation can help bring it closer to perfect, without completely destroying the "free market."

[Thucydides]

Wow, for one of the organs that was cheerleading the #occupy movement they sure are acting like the 1%. But its ok because they are not eeeeeevil Republicans or capitalists, so it does not have to be reported....

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kylesmith/2012/01/05/the-new-york-times-goes-all-in-with-the-1-percenters/

The New York Times Goes All In With The "1 Percenters"

It’s a classic American saga of top hats against hard hats, lions versus sheep, the one percenters and the forgotten 99. It’s a story about fundamental unfairness, corporate excess, and naked greed. There are exploited workers seething in revolt and spoiled plutocrats floating along on clouds of happy oblivion.

Somebody get The New York Times on the story. Wait a second – The New York Times is the story. So never mind.

New York Times employees plan an “urgent” Jan. 9 meeting to discuss their next move because its staff are incensed by the $15 million failure bonus given to outgoing CEO Janet Robinson. Robinson, whose disastrous tenure coincided with a drop in the parent company’s stock price from $40 to less than $8 in seven years, is getting $4.5 million to serve as a “consultant” this year (so the company can avail itself of 12 more months of that storied leadership).

Plus she gets, ahead of schedule, immediate access to a $10.9 million pension (though she is only 61). Her sudden resignation/ouster/defenestration, announced last month, came just three months after Forbes’ Jeff Bercovici said she conducted “what felt rather like a victory lap” to boast of her digital strategy. Third-quarter ad revenue sagged by 8.8 percent.

Meanwhile, according to the president of the Newspaper Guild, the paper is hectoring the workers with demands for concessions. These include pension freezes, savings in the health plan and curtailing bonuses for working late nights or rearranging schedules to deal with unexpected news events. All this would save the company about $9 million this year, or roughly two-thirds of the amount it is paying to a single non-employee: Janet Robinson.

An open letter to Times chieftain Arthur Sulzberger Jr. quickly drew more than 500 signatures, many of them familiar bylines from the paper. Wrote one employee, “The disconnect between the praise lavished upon us and the dismissive treatment we have experienced in negotiations has reached grotesque proportions.”

Somehow the Newspaper of Record has missed this hot developing story, limiting its coverage to the closing lines of a blog post, but then again this is the paper that ignored or was unaware of the 2009 controversy that would force the resignation of avowed communist and 9/11 truther Van Jones as White House “green jobs czar.” (The paper’s editors said it was “understaffed” before a Labor Day weekend when there were nonetheless enough warm bodies to produce a 500-word story on a semi-clothed Times Square panhandler called the Naked Cowboy, who announced he was not running for mayor.)

The uproar within The Times is exactly the sort of development it has breathlessly covered when it’s labeled the Occupy Wall Street movement, which has so obsessed its staff that its classical-music critic recently wrote, “As I listened to these students sing, I thought about the issues of economic inequality that the Occupy Wall Street protesters have moved to the center of political discourse.”

When a failed CEO receives a $15 million golden parachute at the exact moment when Times foreign correspondents who put their lives on the line covering war are having their pensions frozen, isn’t it worthy of comment? And what of the moral implications of a company that extracts ever more concessions from its unions while holding executives to no apparent standard? “I feel that the gap between what Janet Robinson will be leaving with, and what we are being offered, is simply wrong,” wrote the paper’s domestic correspondent Tamar Lewin in a collection of open letters to management.

Shouldn’t proletarian warrior Paul Krugman (whose name at this writing is conspicuously absent from the http://www.saveourtimes.com/) workers’ petition, weigh in on the injustice? A few weeks ago Krugman wrote, “Wealthy Americans who benefit hugely from a system rigged in their favor react with hysteria to anyone who points out just how rigged the system is.” As the 1,200-head Times newsroom staff prepares for more job cuts while Robinson draws a lavish fee for nebulous consulting efforts, doesn’t the Times system seem as rigged as any? Yet the wealthy Americans who run the New York Times simply aren’t interested in publishing any stories about the dispute they’re having with their own worker bees. Maybe we’ll read about the quarrel in the Occupy Wall Street Journal.

Times management will, of course, win this and every other dispute with its employees, who two years ago accepted a five percent pay cut. Unlike mere corporate drones, the priests and priestesses of the Times are fanatics who willingly serve in a holy cause. Company executives could announce a new salary policy in which reporters and commentators pay for the right to work for the paper, and the end product would look about the same.

Consider, for instance, this posting by video journalist Gabe Johnson: “The Times is compensating an executive at the expense of the rank and file, the very behavior that we criticize in our editorial pages. I am confident, nevertheless, that we can all find a way out of this struggle together. This is a wonderful and rare institution and you have made difficult and wise decisions in the past.” In other words: Whatever you say, boss. It might as well be one of the citizen-slaves of Kim Jong-un talking.

[MCG]

So lets imagine a world where these evil CEOs [making more than 100:1¹] did not exist.

...

Congratulations. We are now in a much poorer nation with fewer opportunities and outlets for all Canadians.

Your arguments are as irrational as those of your opposition.  We would all be impoverished if it were not for the existence of superstar CEOs making greater than 100:1?  At best that is an exaggeration, though more likely it is a complete fallacy.

A funny characteristic of supply & demand in free markets is that (at a certain point) prices exponentially increase for linear increases of capability/performance/quality/etc and/or status.  You can see this in the magnitudes greater than teenages will pay for a pair of relatively equal jeans just for the label of a specific brand name.  You can see it again in the thousands more required to have a single small screen and a DVD player in a new car purchase.  One gets the most milage from one's money by not climbing past that point of exponential cost growth for linear capability return.  PWGSC has whole procurement selection methods designed to get the best possible product without climbing up (or at least without climbing far up) the the exponential cost curve.

I would hypothesize that the majority of companies with superstar CEOs could have been magnitudes more profitable had they hired CEOs at 75:1 to 100:1 (still well up on the exponential cost curve) and reinvested what would have gone to CEO salary in order to make their middle labour wages more competitive.  In other words, the companies would have done far better investing in an increase of ability across the hundreds of middle management, professions and skilled trades as opposed to the same investment for one guy and whatever status his image brings.

Note 1: Quote corrected for author's strawman embellishment.

[E.R. Campbell]

 

[Infanteer]

Agreed.

In defence of the 1%, the was an interesting article in Macleans a little while ago (written by Coyne I believe) that pointed to the fact that the 1% pay 25% of all income tax revenue in Canada.  I thought it interesting that so few provided so much.

[GAP]

This one?

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/10/24/a-phony-class-war/

[muskrat89]

In other words, the companies would have done far better investing in an increase of ability across the hundreds of middle management, professions and skilled trades as opposed to the same investment for one guy and whatever status his image brings.

So, why didn't they? Not being argumentative, your post actually made sense to me. But assuming profit is the motive of most of these big companies, and they are being run mostly by Boards, or at least more than one person I'm curious as to why they didn't do what you just suggested. Surely they are not all monopolized by powerful personalities building their respective CEO empires.

[ballz]

So, why didn't they? Not being argumentative, your post actually made sense to me. But assuming profit is the motive of most of these big companies, and they are being run mostly by Boards, or at least more than one person I'm curious as to why they didn't do what you just suggested. Surely they are not all monopolized by powerful personalities building their respective CEO empires.

That ("investing in an increase of ability across the hundreds of middle management, professions and skilled trades") would be the responsibility of officers that the Board of Director's hires. The corps aren't being run by the Board, they are being run by the officers, and yes, from day-to-day, being run by one person, the CEO. The Board just hires/fires the officers (and decides their compensation).

And many times these are Board's are made up of "powerful personalities" and they do keep each other in mind, since the person who they are voting on today will likely be voting on them in the future... Assuming that profit is the "only" motive for corporations as big as the ones we are talking about is, well, the first mistake.

I agree entirely with MCG, that paying a CEO 75:1 instead of 150:1 and using the other money to invest in good personnel would benefit the companies a hell of a lot more. I took an "organization theory" class with a key theme being the more a company expands, the more it has to decentralize (I, too, am surprised that something I learned in university was bang on the money).

*Trying to stay in my lane here*
Most people familiar with the military's "Mission Command" style wouldn't argue with that. It's been taught to me over and over again (and I certainly believe it to be true) that "WOs and Sgts are the back-bone of the army," and then there is another article on this website that includes seasoned Captains in that sort of light... While having strong senior leadership is great, I'm guessing we don't need a "superstar" CDS as long as we have good, strong crops of Sgts/WOs/Capts/Majors, and I doubt it would be any different in a large corp.

[Technoviking]

While having strong senior leadership is great, I'm guessing we don't need a "superstar" CDS as long as we have good, strong crops of Sgts/WOs/Capts/Majors, and I doubt it would be any different in a large corp.

I'm not so sure about the first part.  I agree that we need a good, strong crop of Sr NCOs and WOs along with Junior and Sr Officers.  I would offer, however, that the CDS need to be part General, part politician, part snake-oil salesman, part poster child, and so on.  But most of all, the CDS needs to be very good at "being" CDS: we've had very weak people in that position in the past, and though they may have been good General/Flag officers in their element, they were rotten at "being" CDS and the entire CF suffered as a result (my opinion, anyway). 

[ballz]

I'm not so sure about the first part.  I agree that we need a good, strong crop of Sr NCOs and WOs along with Junior and Sr Officers.  I would offer, however, that the CDS need to be part General, part politician, part snake-oil salesman, part poster child, and so on.  But most of all, the CDS needs to be very good at "being" CDS: we've had very weak people in that position in the past, and though they may have been good General/Flag officers in their element, they were rotten at "being" CDS and the entire CF suffered as a result (my opinion, anyway).

Well, I will have to leave it up to you folks with the experience of various CDS's, and the benefit of hindsight, and all the good stuff to determine if I'm out to lunch on that or not. I obviously have either slim or no experience in the matter, and slim left town.

But (and this may be semantics I suppose) you did say "they were rotten at 'being' CDS" where as all I meant by "we don't need a 'superstar' CDS" is that we don't need the equivalent of a "celebrity" CEO. They (a CDS and a CEO) still need to be, at least, quite a ways above the average (which is why they make the big bucks, and is why I can stomach a CEO getting paid 50:1 or 75:1, etc).

"the CDS need to be part General, part politician, part snake-oil salesman, part poster child, and so on." Something I wasn't considering when I drew the parallel (although I should have), the CDS has a harder job than most CEOs.

[muskrat89]

ballz - I think you missed the thrust of my question.  Knowing human greed as we all do, it is not surprising that many CEO's and associated cronies build their empires at the expense of the good of the company. What is curious to me though is that happens so frequently we can generalize that is usually the case. CEO's and Boards are still beholden to share-holders and other stake-holders so I am surprised it is as prevalent as McG seems to indicate.

By the way, I'm not sure of your experience working in private industry but when I ask these questions, I ask them with some experience under my belt. I have worked for over 25 years in the private sector, from working in huge companies (Emerson, Proctor and Gamble) to small two-man shops. I have been a union member. I have worked in a variety of manufacturing sectors. I have also worked in the service industry (electrical egineering) and the public sector (State of Arizona for a large University). For over half of those 25 years, I worked in various levels of management. I am also finishing up my management degree from NAU, so I have some book-learnin' when it comes to management and organizational theory as well.

[recceguy]

I'm not taking any side or view on this one. However, I do have a question. We've been going on for a few pages and will probably go on for a few more about how much CEO's make and whether it's fair or not.

To that end, really, how can you force ANY non government, private or publicly traded, organization to pay what you think is fair? What legal mechanism do you have for going to 'ABC General Industries' and saying "You will only pay your CEO 50 times more than your lowest paid worker" or "CEO's in this country will have their salaries and options pegged at no more than $300,000\ year"?

Semantics aside, you can rail for\ against the machine all you wish, but in the end, if you can't force them legally and they slam the door in your face, it's a fart in a windstorm.

[tomahawk6]

You dont get to be a flag officer without being a politician. The CDS like our Chairman JCS spends alot of time with the civilians that direct and fund the military.The US Army's Chief of Staff is so involved with Congress that the Vice Chief handles the actual day to day operations.

[E.R. Campbell]

I'm not taking any side or view on this one. However, I do have a question. We've been going on for a few pages and will probably go on for a few more about how much CEO's make and whether it's fair or not.

To that end, really, how can you force ANY non government, private or publicly traded, organization to pay what you think is fair? What legal mechanism do you have for going to 'ABC General Industries' and saying "You will only pay your CEO 50 times more than your lowest paid worker" or "CEO's in this country will have their salaries and options pegged at no more than $300,000\ year"?

Semantics aside, you can rail for\ against the machine all you wish, but in the end, if you can't force them legally and they slam the door in your face, it's a fart in a windstorm.

The power to address this lies with large shareholders.

Some, like this fellow, (a former Army officer (1960s/70s) by the way) have taken a role in demanding lower executive compensation when (as is too often the case) business results, return on shareholders' investments, are not good.