Political Crossfire Forums

Nathyn · Joined: 25 Sep 2005 Posts: 7341 Location: The Great Satan

Somebody brought it up in P&G.

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

I oppose it. What do you think?

Free Thinkr · Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:23 am Post subject: Re: The maximum wage?

Nathyn wrote: Somebody brought it up in P&G.

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

I oppose it. What do you think?
I oppose it as well. Why should income be limited?

Atlas Bergeron · Joined: 27 Aug 2006 Posts: 2680 Location: Reality

I oppose it

PS_Student · Joined: 28 Oct 2006 Posts: 50 Location: Osan

Oppose,
there isn't a need for more government intervention in the market

RueTheDay · Joined: 10 Nov 2005 Posts: 2409

Nathyn wrote: Somebody brought it up in P&G.

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

I oppose it. What do you think?

The concern about spiraling CEO compensation (in direct opposition to the interests of the shareholders who own the company) is a valid one. The solution, however, is more effective corporate governance by more independent boards of directors, not arbitrary maximum wage legislation.

gavnook · Joined: 18 Jan 2006 Posts: 1829 Location: Arizona

RueTheDay wrote: Nathyn wrote: Somebody brought it up in P&G.

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

I oppose it. What do you think?

The concern about spiraling CEO compensation (in direct opposition to the interests of the shareholders who own the company) is a valid one. The solution, however, is more effective corporate governance by more independent boards of directors, not arbitrary maximum wage legislation.

What do you mean by more independent?

RueTheDay · Joined: 10 Nov 2005 Posts: 2409

gavnook wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Nathyn wrote: Somebody brought it up in P&G.

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

I oppose it. What do you think?

The concern about spiraling CEO compensation (in direct opposition to the interests of the shareholders who own the company) is a valid one. The solution, however, is more effective corporate governance by more independent boards of directors, not arbitrary maximum wage legislation.

What do you mean by more independent?

Ones that don't have direct ties to the company's executives. As it stands now, most of these executives sit on each others' boards of directors. It goes well beyond conflicts of interest and old boy network "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" type stuff. These guys are in effect setting their own salaries.

Atlas Bergeron · Joined: 27 Aug 2006 Posts: 2680 Location: Reality

RueTheDay wrote: gavnook wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Nathyn wrote: Somebody brought it up in P&G.

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

I oppose it. What do you think?

The concern about spiraling CEO compensation (in direct opposition to the interests of the shareholders who own the company) is a valid one. The solution, however, is more effective corporate governance by more independent boards of directors, not arbitrary maximum wage legislation.

What do you mean by more independent?

Ones that don't have direct ties to the company's executives. As it stands now, most of these executives sit on each others' boards of directors. It goes well beyond conflicts of interest and old boy network "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" type stuff. These guys are in effect setting their own salaries.

yup. And why is that a problem?

RueTheDay · Joined: 10 Nov 2005 Posts: 2409

Atlas Bergeron wrote: RueTheDay wrote: gavnook wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Nathyn wrote: Somebody brought it up in P&G.

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

I oppose it. What do you think?

The concern about spiraling CEO compensation (in direct opposition to the interests of the shareholders who own the company) is a valid one. The solution, however, is more effective corporate governance by more independent boards of directors, not arbitrary maximum wage legislation.

What do you mean by more independent?

Ones that don't have direct ties to the company's executives. As it stands now, most of these executives sit on each others' boards of directors. It goes well beyond conflicts of interest and old boy network "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" type stuff. These guys are in effect setting their own salaries.

yup. And why is that a problem?

They're supposed to be serving the interests of their shareholders, not their own. The executives do not own the companies. This is a classic principal-agent conflict.

PS_Student · Joined: 28 Oct 2006 Posts: 50 Location: Osan

RueTheDay wrote:
They're supposed to be serving the interests of their shareholders, not their own. The executives do not own the companies. This is a classic principal-agent conflict.

You must have an economics degree- your comments are very dead on and make so much sense, I just have an econ textbook infront of me deciphering what your saying so this is great keep em commin'

nanite1018 · Joined: 01 Oct 2006 Posts: 316 Location: Georgia

I support it. No one needs to make 1000 times more than the average person, it doesn't make any sense for someone to. What will they do with 50 million dollars a year? Buy a bunch of houses, make a car museum, and maybe donate a few million to charity? I'd rather have it spent by the government of education, infrastructure, city restoration, and reform. I would love to see a maximum wage of say, 500x the average income, not including anyone above that limit (for they would skew it upward), and have lower or equal taxes for the middle and lower classes, in order to benefit them economically and promote economic growth and improvement in the quality of life.

Most business leaders, and most CEO s, do not make more than 25 million dollars a year, and hence the laissez-faire capitalists can't say that such a high maximum wage would interfere with growth and entrepreneurship. The prospect of making a hundred or 500 times the income of the average person is still pretty enticing for entrepreneurs.

californian conservative · Joined: 08 Jul 2006 Posts: 3812 Location: Michigan

nanite1018 wrote: I support it. No one needs to make 1000 times more than the average person, it doesn't make any sense for someone to. What will they do with 50 million dollars a year? Buy a bunch of houses, make a car museum, and maybe donate a few million to charity? I'd rather have it spent by the government of education, infrastructure, city restoration, and reform. I would love to see a maximum wage of say, 500x the average income, not including anyone above that limit (for they would skew it upward), and have lower or equal taxes for the middle and lower classes, in order to benefit them economically and promote economic growth and improvement in the quality of life.

Most business leaders, and most CEO s, do not make more than 25 million dollars a year, and hence the laissez-faire capitalists can't say that such a high maximum wage would interfere with growth and entrepreneurship. The prospect of making a hundred or 500 times the income of the average person is still pretty enticing for entrepreneurs.

I oppose. As much as i may hate people (athletes especially) for earning so much, i do not begrudge them their salary. They earn it. If they don't, they get fired. (That brings up severance pay issues but that is a different argument). Also what determines an average salaray (probably mentioned earlier but i didn't get it)?

PS_Student · Joined: 28 Oct 2006 Posts: 50 Location: Osan

californian conservative wrote: Also what determines an average salaray (probably mentioned earlier but i didn't get it)?

In a nut shell, the market does

nanite1018 · Joined: 01 Oct 2006 Posts: 316 Location: Georgia

californian conservative wrote: nanite1018 wrote: I support it. No one needs to make 1000 times more than the average person, it doesn't make any sense for someone to. What will they do with 50 million dollars a year? Buy a bunch of houses, make a car museum, and maybe donate a few million to charity? I'd rather have it spent by the government of education, infrastructure, city restoration, and reform. I would love to see a maximum wage of say, 500x the average income, not including anyone above that limit (for they would skew it upward), and have lower or equal taxes for the middle and lower classes, in order to benefit them economically and promote economic growth and improvement in the quality of life.

Most business leaders, and most CEO s, do not make more than 25 million dollars a year, and hence the laissez-faire capitalists can't say that such a high maximum wage would interfere with growth and entrepreneurship. The prospect of making a hundred or 500 times the income of the average person is still pretty enticing for entrepreneurs.

I oppose. As much as i may hate people (athletes especially) for earning so much, i do not begrudge them their salary. They earn it. If they don't, they get fired. (That brings up severance pay issues but that is a different argument). Also what determines an average salary (probably mentioned earlier but i didn't get it)?

I meant the average income of a person in the United States. It's about 60000 dollars, many get less, in fact it's more like 50 thousand if you take out the super-high earners in the top 1%. Anyway, all i am saying is that no one needs to make 500 times as much as the average American, it's ridiculous.

Harbinger · Joined: 23 Apr 2006 Posts: 617 Location: California

RueTheDay wrote:
Nathyn wrote:
Somebody brought it up in P&G.

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

I oppose it. What do you think?

The concern about spiraling CEO compensation (in direct opposition to the interests of the shareholders who own the company) is a valid one. The solution, however, is more effective corporate governance by more independent boards of directors, not arbitrary maximum wage legislation.
I oppose. Salaries should only be capped by the free market.

If the shareholders are the owners, then they should have the exclusive right to vote on what executives get paid based on how satisfied they are with the performance of their stocks.

However, I have a problem with the whole idea of shareholding. It violates one of my fundamental principles of ownership in that property can never be shared. If a corporation is a legal person, then it should own itself entirely just as actual persons own themselves entirely. In that case, corporate executives acting as agents of their corporate principles should have the power to manage their own salaries as part of managing their principles.

chris_mthomas · Joined: 29 Jan 2006 Posts: 561 Location: Shenzhen

Quote: The concern about spiraling CEO compensation (in direct opposition to the interests of the shareholders who own the company) is a valid one.
Shareholders have plenty of resources at their disposal to rid themselves of ineffective or greedy management if need be.

As for the maximum wage, I can't help but find the stupidity of liberals humorous. They want to help the poor, so they argue fiercely for a high minimum wage so that it redistributes income toward the bottom of the income ladder. Admirable - but price floors create surpluses, and the actual effect is increased unemployment for those that are most desperate.

So now let's punish those greedy CEOs! But price ceilings create shortages, and suddenly the demand for high level executives would just skyrocket.

Can't liberals learn anything about economics? It's like they just don't want to. This stuff isn't arguable, we know from experience what happens when the government steps in and attempts to control prices. I mean... price ceilings? Price floors? This is pretty basic stuff. It's not like having to learn the intricacies of econometrics.

Free Thinkr · Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 12:19 pm Post subject:

chris_mthomas wrote: Can't liberals learn anything about economics? It's like they just don't want to. This stuff isn't arguable, we know from experience what happens when the government steps in and attempts to control prices. I mean... price ceilings? Price floors? This is pretty basic stuff. It's not like having to learn the intricacies of econometrics.
Yes, well, please explain to Harbinger the effect of price ceilings on apartments.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 14747 Location: Florida

nanite1018 wrote: californian conservative wrote: nanite1018 wrote: I support it. No one needs to make 1000 times more than the average person, it doesn't make any sense for someone to. What will they do with 50 million dollars a year? Buy a bunch of houses, make a car museum, and maybe donate a few million to charity? I'd rather have it spent by the government of education, infrastructure, city restoration, and reform. I would love to see a maximum wage of say, 500x the average income, not including anyone above that limit (for they would skew it upward), and have lower or equal taxes for the middle and lower classes, in order to benefit them economically and promote economic growth and improvement in the quality of life.

Most business leaders, and most CEO s, do not make more than 25 million dollars a year, and hence the laissez-faire capitalists can't say that such a high maximum wage would interfere with growth and entrepreneurship. The prospect of making a hundred or 500 times the income of the average person is still pretty enticing for entrepreneurs.

I oppose. As much as i may hate people (athletes especially) for earning so much, i do not begrudge them their salary. They earn it. If they don't, they get fired. (That brings up severance pay issues but that is a different argument). Also what determines an average salary (probably mentioned earlier but i didn't get it)?

I meant the average income of a person in the United States. It's about 60000 dollars, many get less, in fact it's more like 50 thousand if you take out the super-high earners in the top 1%. Anyway, all i am saying is that no one needs to make 500 times as much as the average American, it's ridiculous.

I don't disagree with that, but there is nothing in the Constitution that even using my wildest creativity could give the government the power to regulate maximum wage.

ALso, the average salary is closer to $40k, with the average household income at around $45k a year.

Atlas Bergeron · Joined: 27 Aug 2006 Posts: 2680 Location: Reality

perdidochas wrote: I don't disagree with that, but there is nothing in the Constitution that even using my wildest creativity could give the government the power to regulate maximum wage.

almost every government power in regards to the ecconomy comes from Article 1 Section 8

"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

Harbinger · Joined: 23 Apr 2006 Posts: 617 Location: California

Free Thinkr wrote:
chris_mthomas wrote:
Can't liberals learn anything about economics? It's like they just don't want to. This stuff isn't arguable, we know from experience what happens when the government steps in and attempts to control prices. I mean... price ceilings? Price floors? This is pretty basic stuff. It's not like having to learn the intricacies of econometrics.

Yes, well, please explain to Harbinger the effect of price ceilings on apartments.

I never advocated a universal price ceiling!

What I meant was the free market only works fairly as long as their is plenty of competition. When competition falls short, it results in a market failure. When a market failure causes the lowest income to fall below the cost of living (as in the job market) or causes the costs of living to rise above the lowest income (as in the retail market- housing in particular), the state should do whatever it can to increase competition. If that fails, it becomes necessary to impose price and quality controls but only where the market has failed and only until the market recovers. Otherwise, inflation is inevitable and people will suffer indefinitely.