English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

If you live in a the US, it is a capitalist country. This means you basically sell yourself. If a sports figure makes millions, its because their is a market for the talent. Not just anyone can do it. There is no cap. As long as someone is willing to buy the product (their is a market) you can charge what the markey will pay. What is so hard about this concept? And would you want someone putting a cap on YOUR salary?

2007-05-11 05:35:18 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

15 answers

Supply and demand is hard for some people to understand.

BTW, you will probably get answers referring to CEO's from people who don't understand the amount of hard work and talent it takes to advance that far in a major company. Many of these CEO's are the Tiger Woods' of the business world.

In addition, I can't understand why people get so angry either. They don't own the company. Shareholders (the owner) elect board members that determine executive pay. If a CEO is overpaid, nobody can be blamed except from the shareholders.

It really is not the business of these idiots running around crying about the need for salary caps.

2007-05-11 05:43:30 · answer #1 · answered by Time to Shrug, Atlas 6 · 0 0

Several reasons, only one of which is valid.

Corporate executives are often also board members and they have the ability to streamline the voting process. There are good reasons for this - there can be tens of thousands of shareholders and the execs are supposed to focus on production and distribution, which they can't do if everything goes to a shareholder vote. But sometimes they take advantage of this and pay themselves exorbitant salaries, which they get away with if they're also board members. The shareholders are then stuck - - there are measures they can take to try to reduce the salaries, but taking them can adversely affect the stock price. There should be reforms to the corporate voting process to provide shareholders more control over executive compensation. Note, I wrote shareholders, not government, not the public at large. If sales double, EBITDA triples, the company buys back some stock and the stock price quadruples, maybe the CEO is worth $5 million per year.

The other reasons are envy and the inability to understand that (a) it's not a zero sum game - what I'm paid doesn't come at the expense of your pay, and (b) in the market, one's pay is, ultimately, determined by everyone else. It might seem 'unfair' that a pitcher with a 4.0 ERA makes $10MM per year while a schoolteacher makes $40K per year - - but that happens only because we pay $40 a ticket to go to the games.

What Mr. Eko doesn't understand is that it's not an "objective" scale - it's subjective. So the measure of fairness has to come down to who makes the subjective decision - - the market - i.e., the consumers - - or some smaller body of individuals, some star chamber. The reason it's fair that Madonna makes more than a janitor who works very hard is that it's a result of what people are willing to pay to see Madonna sing and dance versus what they are willing to pay to have someone clean the bathroom. The differences are also driven by the fact that there are a lot more people who can clean a bathroom than there are people who can sing - but irrespective of supply and of how hard the individual works, the determination of relative value is made by the consumers.

It's a subjective decision - there is no objective definition of 'fair' - the question of fairness thus can only be a function of who gets to make the subjective decision. In the market that 'who' is the consumers, all of us in the aggregate. In any other system it has to be some smaller group of people deciding for the rest of us.

2007-05-11 12:37:47 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I can see your point. perhaps it is not the high salaries per se but the "I am higher class than you are" attitude that sometimes goes with it and the flaunting of wealth in a frivolous way while real poverty exists which a well off person with the right attitude could allivieate. My ex came from wealth and some of his relatives were still pretty good people and others were truly disgusting. I can remember a conversation with a fellow about someone who had some money and my position that they thought it was buying them CLASS but it wasnt. He said money doesnt buy class, but IT MAKES PEOPLE THINK YOU HAVE SOME. AND IN THE SOUTH ANYWAY, APPEARANCES ARE EVERYTHING AND SUBSTANCE NOTHING. I am from NYC and i hope that isnt completely true but i fear there is something to it and its getting worse everywhere. the bible does say, Men will get worse and worse, proud disobedient boastful, etc. Doe not be surprised or dismayed. But it is very hard to see these miserable, self absorbed people hailed as the winners in this twisted society.

2007-05-11 12:40:14 · answer #3 · answered by julianne s 2 · 0 0

Entitlement programs have created a generation of people with an entitlement mentality. They think they deserve a free ride at others' expense. However, the government's entitlements will only level the playing field to the most basic necessities, but will NEVER create wealth for ANYONE. If someone has an entitlement philosophy, they believe they can never get ahead and resent those who do. It's a lack of hope. They do not believe they have anything of value to offer society in exchange for a salary. Maybe that's an educational problem, but it's always a problem of work-apathy, or an entitlement-cycle of reasoning.

2007-05-11 12:42:14 · answer #4 · answered by lizardmama 6 · 2 0

It is a question of the myth of the meritocracy.

Also, I think some people are finally starting to realise that the concept of a middle class is a lie. The so-called middle class must still sell their labour to survive. Have and have not is the only distinction that matters.

An NBA player's "work" is more valuable than that of a teacher? Come on.
People have every right to feel entitled to fairness, whether they can realistically expect it or not.

2007-05-11 12:42:27 · answer #5 · answered by Alowishus B 4 · 0 0

Old fashioned jealousy. The politicians have been playing on this wealth envy for years. Every time they talk about raising taxes, they only talk about the tax rates for the 'rich'. But the pols themselves are rich and getting richer which only means they can hire other ppl to game the system to reduce their burden. Why do you think China is holding so much of our debt?

2007-05-11 13:08:30 · answer #6 · answered by mikey 6 · 0 0

I don't want no cap they maake my hair fall out.
And you're right. If you get rich, your friends begin to snub you. Unless you start throwing the money around. Then they start following you around waiting for a dollar to fall out of your pocket.

2007-05-11 12:41:08 · answer #7 · answered by Handy man 5 · 0 0

Under achieving whining Socialists are always envious of some one with the gift to make money!! It is the sign of the times

2007-05-11 12:39:32 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

It may have something to do with the fact that some people work their asses of and still struggle to get by, while others get paid millions for doing **** all.

2007-05-11 12:38:34 · answer #9 · answered by Mr. Eko 4 · 1 2

What are your spouting off for? Are you a sports figure?

2007-05-11 12:38:55 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers