Liberals answer this question about the economy?

Question

Many liberals believe CEOs of companies like IBM and Home Depot make way too much money. However, why do you never complain about how much money movie stars, athletes, or major musicians make? After all, CEOs at least make the policies that keep America's businesses on track... thereby providing jobs for millions. In the meantime, movie stars, athletes, musicians, or artists employ very few people and live like royalty. Why are so many people OK with one group of people making millions for what they do, while it is not OK for others to make millions for what they do?

lltrix... Just so you know, I work for one of the companies I mentioned, and I made almost $30,000 my first year.

"g"... Are you really a g? Any way, I have talked to "libs" (so I don't have to assume). I am taking this argument from a conversation I had with one of my "lib" friends

Aleksandr.. HAHAHA... YOU JUST PROVED MY POINT!! Your quote:
Celebrities earn obscene amounts of money, perhaps too much, but if people want to give it to them, who am I to stop them?

So if you don't have the right to "stop them", why do you have the right to stop CEOs?

Answer 1

All liberals know about money is that it is the green stuff that conservatives generate that should be thrown at everyone who doesn't want to work.

Answer 2

That's a good question.

One of the things I don't like about CEOs is that, while they're making so much money, they are exploiting the people under them, paying the minimum the market demands without taking into account the cost of living except for employees they consider irreplaceable... if they don't like it, let them work multiple jobs or live off of the remnants of their parents' earnings from back when we had a middle-class economy... not to mention how they treat foreign workers.

It's a common misconception to say that liberals are all a bunch of commies... I am not communist, I have no problem with earning a good living and I think if someone does a good job they should get paid for it. Celebrities earn obscene amounts of money, perhaps too much, but if people want to give it to them, who am I to stop them? And the things they do, making movies or touring with their music, etc., do actually create quite a few jobs.

I'm not necessarily in favor of an arbitrary cap on how much CEOs make. If they earn less, what does it mean to the workers? Nothing. What we need is to make sure their workers are getting their fair share... and if that means the CEOs earn less money, then it's true, they WERE earning too much. If they want to earn more, they should start more new businesses, create more jobs, and make up for the lost percentage in volume.


Oh and a note about athletes... unless they're the biggest athletes with the most advertizing revenue, they retire in modest terms, because injuries or basic wear and tear often make it difficult for them to find any other physical work later on.


HAHAHA... congratulations, you found something in my argument which, taken out of context, seems to support your ideology. You obviously didn't read what I wrote with an open mind. I SAY CEOS CAN MAKE MONEY. I think the jobs they provide should have to pay a living wage. That's all. After that, they can make all the money they want. The more jobs they make, the more money they should get... as long as they're DECENT jobs with the necessary payment and workplace standards to provide a decent life for the workers.

Answer 3

Hey, I'm not a "liberal." I support the war on terror and even support broadening it to attack Iran. BUT, rich people make too much money, athletes and others included. Personally, I think that anything over 5 million a year is RIDICULOUS. Anything above that should be divided in two (after taxes) and half given to the person who earned it and half redistributed among the American people. That would solve homelessness, most of our poverty, and show our citizens that we are a just nation. Instead, we choose to reward greed. This is the only thing about America I don't like. I mean, anyone making over 5 million a year is a jerk. That's why I don't buy albums or movies, or watch dumb games. Bunch of millionaires who would hate me if they knew me. And you're right, at least the CEO's employ people, but that doesn't mean that they need to make more than a thousand of their lowest paid workers either. Bottom line, millionares are pigs, unless they give most of their money to others. Burning money while people starve. Real human of ya.

I just want to say it's sad the way both the person asking the question and the above answerer politicize this discussion. Grow a pair and think for yourselves, "men." Words like "Liberals" and "Neocons" are for "Neocons" and "Liberals." In other words, people who hang themselves on other people's words. Hope you enjoy your weird-*** news programs that reinforce your stupidity.

Answer 4

CEO's are often the heads of public companies - meaning they have stockholders who are the true owners of the company. The problem is the CEO's and Boards treat the company as if they owned it, and pay themselves huge salaries, ridiculous bonuses, stock options for life, and cherry separation deals. The stockholders get shortchanged, the workers get shortchanged, and the taxpayers derive little or no income from it - while the company uses government resources to run it's business, and subsidies in the form of tax breaks for staying in a particular state or municipality.
It's just gotten out of control and needs some looking at.

Answer 5

Applause for trying to see all sides of the picture!!!!!! Or, thumbs down if you are just trying to make liberals appear stupid, and for the record, this is like -- poly sci 101 or intro to econ.....Liberals only rebel against large CEO salaries and BONUSES when they pay the companies workers a sub-standard wage. If the studios pay an actor a huge fee and the movie bombs, the actor finds it harder and harder to get movies made. When a CEO screws up, as long as his board is well compensated and well connected, usually the lower level employees get layed off or lose benefits but his bonus and benefits just keep going up. No checks and balances. We have control over buying the latest endorsed product, but we have no control over ENRON not paying hundreds of vendors who had to go out of business while the execs rolled in dough!

Answer 6

First off I don't know what liberal you are quoting, because I have never seen anyone put that on here. Maybe I just wasn't online when it happened. And, anyways, you're right. CEO's do provide a lot of jobs.......to children in China. I personally don't think that celebrities should make as much as they do. I'm an aspiring artist who only needs the bare minimums. If I ever make it big, I'll tell all of my fans to download my music for free and I'll give away all the money I don't need. As art is just that, art. Expression of ones self. No one should be paid that much for it. At that point, you're no longer an artist, but an employee of the media.

Answer 7

What makes you think we don't believe celebrities salaries are obscene? 20 million for a movie is too high and Alex Rodriguez' contract for 250 million is too high. That help?

The top CEO's have under performing companies. For example, Oracle CEO Ellison took in 700 million in 2002, meanwhile Oracle lost 52 percent of its market share and downsized 13,000 workers. Is that fair?

Answer 8

1. With the exception of a only few CEOs, most of the CEOs whether in the US or around the globe, did not start the companies from rags to riches.

2. Those companies have already got the infrastructure, name, goodwill & clients established earlier before joining. In other words, they have been cushioned by the existing businesses.

3. Or, most contracts or business given to them are awarded by their 'sweetener&kickback-hunger friends' in the governments and other private sectors.

Answer 9

first off... those people you mention are merely employees of CEOs and I will assure you... those CEOs are making a good deal more than those you mention...

but, I will also remind you that millions of people are employed by the companies that hire the sports stars and entertainers... and without them... those people may not be employed...

sports and movies are clearly HUGE business... and are clearly dependent on the talent...

and LASTLY... every liberal I know DOES COMPLAIN ABOUT IT... and few think it's ok on one case and not in another...

maybe you should actually talk to a lib... instead of just assuming you have a clue about what they think?

this question is like me asking... "why are conservatives in favor of partial birth abortions, but yet are pro-life?"

uh... conservatives aren't in favor of partial birth abortions, so the question would be wrong... your idea is incorrect...

Answer 10

they don't earn that money through the labor of others, athletes train hard, actors give up their privacy and most are talented, IBM pays their employees well, I am more concerned about companies like Walmart who subsidize employee health care through government programs, and mining companies who don't compensate for the environmental impact of their endeavors

Answer 11

I don't complain about Stars, because I can choose not to support their profession. I also choose not to support companies that over pay their CEO's....and I make up to 70,000 a year driving trucks. Thank You