Skip to main content

View Diary: New rule -- the maximum wage (72 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Good luck at getting a CEO for that price nt (5+ / 0-)

    nt

    •  I s/he is in it for the money, the s/he is not (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kevskos, 6412093, gfv6800

      in it for the job, the performance or the satisfaction of knowing they're competent.

      We allegedly paid for the "best and the brightest" and they delivered us the biggest financial and economic mess we've seen.

      Good thinking ... let's pay them more. I would hazard to guess that 80% of all businesses, as they exist at this very moment, would do better without the CEOs and their lackeys.

      None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

      by achronon on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 10:21:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  very few people do something (5+ / 0-)

        just for the satisfaction.

        You might hazard to guess that, but that is just a hazardess guess.

        •  Did I miss something? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          achronon

          $187,000/year is nowhere near "just for the satisfaction".  

          Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

          by nominalize on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 02:56:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  nominalize - nearly all members of Congress (0+ / 0-)

            could make more in the private sector, even excluding lobbying.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 05:45:21 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  there's making money... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              achronon, VClib, Words In Action

              and then there's the power and status that comes with being a United States Senator.    

              It isn't all about the money, even for CEO's.  There is a large element of satisfaction in the job, in building a company, beating the competition, developing new products that dazzle the world, being the head honcho, the decision maker, the face of the company, being able to throw one's weight around, and so forth.  

              But to get back to my point--- I think that RightLeaningMod's assertion is correct--- few people do things just for the satisfaction.   That is, for $0/ year.  But RightLeaningMod implies that a salary of $187K is essentiallly $0 for a CEO, and that implication is false--- a salary of $187,000/year is by no means "just for the satisfaction", and considering how many people do work at lower pay scales than they could make because they love the work, why wouldn't that include CEO's (for the reasons listed above)?  

              Government employees generally make less than their private sector counterparts, because a) we, the owners, are cheap :D, and b) they are working for the public good, and that is supposedly a satisfaction in and of itself.  The private sector may lack that satisfaction to some extent (I suppose it depends on the position). But consider that a company with a government contract is working towards the public good, just like a public sector employee.  So why shouldn't they be paid less than their purely private sector counterparts?  

              Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

              by nominalize on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 11:41:50 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  If everyone did what they did simply (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wisper, FG, misslegalbeagle, achronon

        for satisfaction the volunteer sector would be booming as would be many charities, non-profit orgs, etc.

        •  But money represents good and production (0+ / 0-)

          which can both be increased with good management.  Its not really "finite".

          For example, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates.  They didn't just take more than their share, they created something new.

          •  Goods infinite? (0+ / 0-)

            Natural resources are very finite.

            These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people... -Abraham Lincoln

            by HugoDog on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 10:50:00 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Resources are finite. The money supply is finite. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gfv6800

            Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are the supreme examples of those who have taken more than their fair share. Bill Gates is responsible for funding a gazillion jobs in education that do nothing to benefit children in the classroom.  He did not come by his billions honestly, and no one deserves control over that much money.  He uses it to tell the rest of us (especially educators) what to do.

             

            Not everything that can be counted counts. Not everything that counts can be counted. Albert Einstein

            by annie em on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 10:57:41 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  dafuq? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              misslegalbeagle, VClib
              He did not come by his billions honestly
              You may want to quibble over the sharp-edged business tactics Microsoft used to create markets, but if you think one of the most visionary Technologists of our time didn't earn a lot of money then I'm not sure what your basis is for anything.
              no one deserves control over that much money
              "DESERVES"... thats how we're deciding things now?  You only get the amount of money other people decide you deserve?  Really?  Not a tax on a certain percent?  Not incentivized philanthropy?  Just "You deserve $X.00 and not a penny more!"

              This idea is getting more unhinged the more you describe it.

              Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

              by Wisper on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 11:07:08 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Excuse me ... visionary technologists? (0+ / 0-)

                Where did you come up with that one? What technology did Microsoft ever develop? We already know that they never developed any products on their own.

                Gates spent years, and millions of dollars fighting networking (because he was afraid it would make Windows superfluous ... which it did); and Microsoft never really did figure out how to do it at the OS level so they dumped in the Unix networking modules (unacknowledged and unpaid-for) just so they could get to market.

                None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

                by achronon on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 12:33:55 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  le sigh (0+ / 0-)

                  Keep on hating...

                  Everyone has their own cottage-industry fairy tale about how Microsoft never invented anything coupled with their own darling company/flavor of obsolete tech that was pure and original and perfect (and, usually, now dead).

                  Whatever keeps you warm at night.  I've spent 20+ years fighting for and against MS on many platforms but your comment:

                  We already know that they never developed any products on their own.
                  Is untrammeled shit.  Not even Jobs tried to claim that.

                  I was just having a discussion with one of my development managers back in January about Ajax.  I barely knew what Ajax was and this guy is going on and on about how Microsoft invented the best technology for asynchronous HTTP and client side HTML modifications and patented ALL OF IT with absolutely no release of API's for years.  His claim is that this not only helped IE become the business default platform in the browser arena and solidified Outlook because of OWA but it stifled industry-wide innovation.  It took Safari 5 years and Opera 6 years to match AJax.  Even Firefox (my browser of choice) couldn't do it out of the gate.

                  So every time you use Google Maps, or gmail or any other of the THOUSANDS of sites relying on XMLHttpRequest language you are unknowingly thanking Bill Gates.  (or possibly cursing him for not allowing Web 2.0 to happen much sooner)

                  ...oh, and he says "You're Welcome"  (or possibly "Get over it")

                  Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

                  by Wisper on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 09:32:03 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

                    As Ajax is not a program, nor a product, but an approach to client-server interaction, I don't see how you can say my comment is "untrammeled shit". When I think products, I generally think of things that can be bought and sold, but you obviously have a different understanding of what the term means. You are taking a somewhat narrow view here, but that's certainly your prerogative.

                    Of course, expecting an intelligent discussion is probably out of the question. I don't hate anyone, let alone Mr. Gates, but the genius of technology he isn't. He's a very bright man and he has some very useful skills for the business world, and that's just fine with me. It's the unbridled and unjustified idolization of individuals who remain mere mortals that sometimes rubs me the wrong way.

                    What Microsoft is "famous" for is Windows and the Office Suite. Windows was around before Microsoft, it is built on IBM's common user access platform. The office suite was pieced together from companies that they acquired. Even DOS was bought.  

                    What is more, what did Mr Gates do in all of this other than run the company?

                    None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

                    by achronon on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 10:51:43 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  Jobs and Gates didn't receive Federal subsidies. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib

            When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

            by PhilJD on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 11:49:32 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I didn't say they did. I did say that (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gfv6800

              Bill Gates and Jobs fund companies that received millions of our tax dollars to privatize education. They pay CEOs and execs sizable salaries to cause chaos in our public schools. I don't want my tax dollars going to pay high salaries to people who are destroying public education.

              Not everything that can be counted counts. Not everything that counts can be counted. Albert Einstein

              by annie em on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 11:57:41 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  What did Jobs and Gates create that was new? (0+ / 0-)

            Operating systems, especially ones that work well, were around a long time before Microsoft got in the act.

            And while we're at it, how many products did Microsoft ever develop on its own? I'll save you from looking: the answer is 0 (yes, zero). Everything Microsoft produced was bought, usually by acquisition.

            Jobs: mice, laser printers, graphical user interfaces ... all invented by Xerox which Jobs used to put together his Mac (which was started and developed to force out Wozniak from Apple ... I'm not making this up, read is biography), so where's all of Job's "new"?

            No, they took more than their share.

            None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

            by achronon on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 12:29:43 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I don't agree (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib

          A lot of people do what they love and still make a hefty buck--- from doctors to engineers to all sorts of people.  

          Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

          by nominalize on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 02:57:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  That's exactly my point. The government is (4+ / 0-)

      complicit in setting high salaries in the private sector. It's a double standard. We shouldn't support corporate greed with our taxes.  And, I think there are many execs who would rise to the occasion for a top government salary.  

      Not everything that can be counted counts. Not everything that counts can be counted. Albert Einstein

      by annie em on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 10:50:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Oh, I think there'd be pretty long lines for a job (5+ / 0-)

      paying $187,200 a year.

      Oh, I know, they would just be small people who didn't attend special elite CEO school...

      What qualifications would they have for offshoring American jobs and running a company into the ground anyway?

      When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

      by PhilJD on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 11:42:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah I never understood that argument (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PhilJD

        You'll never attract a talented CEO without a massive salary, they say...  well, reality teaches us that it's a crapshoot either way.  

        Besides, there's more to being CEO than the money.  There's the power.  The status.  The glory.  The perks.  The name on the letterhead.  

        Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

        by nominalize on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 03:00:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Someone will do it. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nominalize

      And their head will be the right size for the job .

      When 1% take 121% of the gains from "recovery", people actually recovering from lost employment are trading down on wages and benefits. Current strategies by moderates don't even consider winning the Class War.

      by Words In Action on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 12:28:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Oh, I think that price would easily attract some (0+ / 0-)

      people who could run the economy into the ground just as successfully as the corporate bankers and leaders at GM and Chrysler.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site