Bush Administration Makes A Big Mistake. - Page 2

RightinNYC · 03-24-05, 02:11 AM

Regarding the CEO salary ratio:

What does that point prove? It proves that America has better paid CEO's.

Say Company A pays its workers an average of 40,000, and it's CEO 400,000.
Company B pays its workers an average of 50,000, and it's CEO 5,000,000.

Which company would you rather work for?
B.

The GDP per capita in 1999 was 31500 for the US and 21500 for the UK. Say you're a Briton. Would the knowledge that your CEO only made 24 times as much as you rather than 400 make up for the fact that you're living on 50% less than your American counterpart? NO!

Each corporation can pay its employees, which a CEO is, whatever it wants.

These facts are completely unrelated to the fact that the US worker IS experiencing a "Golden Age" as the numbers I gave you proved.

anomaly · 03-24-05, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightatNYU

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that there was no debate, but only that it's not one that I think would be productive. There is no way I will change your mind about the economic systems, so there's not really a point to staying up past 2 to argue it.

The fact of that matter is that that capitalist system that you decry is the reason you have your job, the reason that you live in a house, the reason why you can enjoy all the pleasures of life that we as Americans have.

You can say that capitalism hurts the majority of the people, but tell that to the 95% of our country which is currently employed because of that capitalism.

The bottom line is this:

The United States, a capitalist society, has the highest standard of living and best living conditions in the history of the modern world. The only evidence I need for capitalism being successful is all around us.

You can talk about the pitfalls of the system all you want, but point out to me even ONE place where socialism has worked? There is no successful socialist utopia out there, and there never will be.

China WAS communist, and had massive human rights violations and a stagnant economy. It became more capitalist, it retained its human rights violations, and the economy boomed.

They had abuse problems long before they were a capitalist nation, so to blame their condition on their current economic policies is like saying America is a rich nation because of the internet.

I agree that we won't resolve this, as we both have some evidence we deem important. But I would like to correct you on some points. First, socialism, regardless of what numbers you throw out there, has worked in certain places in Europe. It's not complete socialism, but it's obviously far 'more' socialist than anything in the USA. Again, I'd like to point out that I find that the reason we live 'the good life' in the USA is partly due to our Pax Americana, where we, living in the country, do not experience war, and simulated prosperity can have as profound effect on the economy as actual prosperity. Also, it is entirely due to gov't regulation that today we live the 'good life', thanks to such thangs as minimum wage, and other apects of FDR's New Deal. The countries where capitalism exists unregulated have a much lower standard of liing than does the USA or the EU.

Also, you say China was 'Communist' and perhaps they did have a Communist party, but they were not communist. Communism is production strictly for human use, not profit, so we can see that China was socialist i.e. nationalisation of the economy, with a dictator. Can you point to me one place throughout the course of human history where a dictatorship, or any form of tyranny, was able to be sustained and was successful? All I wish to do is to democratize the economy, instead of seeing it in the hands of the few. The only thing that has 'failed' that was under the name of 'socialism' was Stalinism. Stalin, as you may know, destroyed Lenin's dream of democratic socialism. He killed Trotsky, and then appointed himself dictator. And with a growing Soviet military, who would oppose him? China followed him as did North Korea. But, there were some bright spots, where Stalin's influece was, for a time atleast, not felt. Che Guevaro in Cuba helped establish a socialist state which, even today, is a huge improvement over Batista's Cuba. Ho Chi Minh led a revolutionary movement in Vietnam that nearly united the country, and in the north, redistributed land for peasants, making him immensely popular. We all, of course, know what happened there, n 1964-72, though.

RightinNYC · 03-24-05, 02:17 AM

Also, the only numbers I've been able to find on CEO to employee salary ratio, the ones you're presenting, have come from one survey performed by an organization with an obvious bias.

I would very much question that, because there are tens of thousands of small businesses in the US with "CEO's" making reasonable salaries.

anomaly · 03-24-05, 02:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightatNYU

Also, the only numbers I've been able to find on CEO to employee salary ratio, the ones you're presenting, have come from one survey performed by an organization with an obvious bias.

I would very much question that, because there are tens of thousands of small businesses in the US with "CEO's" making reasonable salaries.

It's in a Thomas Frank book called One Market Under God. Also, it may help you to type in 'Gini index' into google to see how inequality has risen, and is high as it ever was during the '20s.

ShamMol · 03-24-05, 02:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightatNYU

Also, the only numbers I've been able to find on CEO to employee salary ratio, the ones you're presenting, have come from one survey performed by an organization with an obvious bias.

I would very much question that, because there are tens of thousands of small businesses in the US with "CEO's" making reasonable salaries.

Small businesses however are not what is at issue here...big business is so they don't count. Those small business could become bigger, but to those business, CEO is just a name and they don't make nearly the ratio, hell, not even close.

And as to that information, you work with what is given to you, and if that is all there is, then you have to use it.

RightinNYC · 03-24-05, 02:24 AM

Socialism has worked in Europe, in that it taxes the population up to 70% and has caused a widespread economic slump.

I'm in agreement with you on the necessity of government intervention to a point, but the market has to be free to work how it will.

If you want to attribute US success to pax americana, then recent european success can be attributed to the pax europa that has lasted for the past 60 years.

You're right, in that dictatorships cannot be sustained, but I fail to see how our government is a dictatorship. As to socialism, it was tried, and has never worked. If you want to try again, fine, but do it elsewhere. I'm looking forward to having a steady job and a decent standard of living.

RightinNYC · 03-24-05, 02:26 AM

You work with that information because that is all you have, but that doesn't mean it's true.

And who decides what is big business and what is small? What's the threshold? I know of plenty of small businesses that have CEO's, CFO's, etc...

anomaly · 03-24-05, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightatNYU

Regarding the CEO salary ratio:

What does that point prove? It proves that America has better paid CEO's.

Say Company A pays its workers an average of 40,000, and it's CEO 400,000.
Company B pays its workers an average of 50,000, and it's CEO 5,000,000.

Which company would you rather work for?
B.

The GDP per capita in 1999 was 31500 for the US and 21500 for the UK. Say you're a Briton. Would the knowledge that your CEO only made 24 times as much as you rather than 400 make up for the fact that you're living on 50% less than your American counterpart? NO!

Each corporation can pay its employees, which a CEO is, whatever it wants.

These facts are completely unrelated to the fact that the US worker IS experiencing a "Golden Age" as the numbers I gave you proved.

It would be nice if it were so simple as you describe. Workers wages, especially blue collar, have remained very stagnant during the '90s. Bush's mad economic practices certainly haven't helped them. But, during this golden age you describe (it certainly is a golden age of consumerism) CEOs have seen a tremendous increase in cash flow, making wage 'increases' of workers look completely insignificant by comparison. And ask any sociologist, a wide gap between rich and poor is not good for a country's society or economy, and doesn't it bother you in the least that the middle class is disappearing? Me, I prefer the old liberal/socialist idea of caring about worker's interests (the majority) more than those of rich people. Call me insane, but that's how I, and many others on the left, think. We support the 'common man' rather than the rich man, because the rich man will not become 'unrich' through gov't action, but the worker certainly will become impoverished through a lack of it.

RightinNYC · 03-24-05, 02:28 AM

inequality isn't the end all and be all for economic growth.

Again, if I make 50,000 and you make 40,000 is that better than me making 20,000 and you making 19,000?

We're more unequal, but we're both richer.

anomaly · 03-24-05, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightatNYU

You work with that information because that is all you have, but that doesn't mean it's true.

And who decides what is big business and what is small? What's the threshold? I know of plenty of small businesses that have CEO's, CFO's, etc...

You deny my info because it doesn't suit your position? Again, just look up Gini index to see that inequality is sharply on the rise. The ratio of which I speak simply compares CEO's of companies, their average salary, to the average salary of workers, namely blue collar workers. The ratio is rising in the USA.