Would you work for a huge salary?

[Dr.Who]

When does the "economy dictate" that the CEO should be paid 227 times what the employees of the same company gets? There is a huge difference between what a company chooses to pay its employees and what it could pay them if they gave a $hit about them.

I think that is a pretty delusional statement.

If a company split the salary of the CEO among its employees that MIGHT get an extra cent per paycheck. But the company would lose their CEO and would have to hire a CEO that would work for minimum wage. Instead of a person with a business degree from Harvard they would get a person with a GED who doesn't have the persistence to finish HS the first time. Then when the company was run into the ground they would ALL lose their jobs.

I would also mentioned that I have worked for plenty of companies where the boss did care about the employees. (and companies where the employees did not care about the boss) One of the companies I worked for was resonsible to find jobs for disabled people. Almost every disabled person that I helped get hired was hired at a loss to the company that hired them just because the boss wanted to do something good. Go into any grocery store in this country and you will likely find one or two disabled persons bagging groceries getting paid the same as the other baggers even though in some cases they work half as fast.

Then I would point out that most companies work on a very small profit margin. When you buy a burger at Mcdonald's the markup is only fractions of a cent. The average profit margin of all industries in the US is only about 6%.
http://everydayecon.wordpress.com/2006/04/26/oil-profit-margins-vs-other-industries/
Many like fast food and grocery stores work in much lower percents. The dreaded insurance industry only has profits on the 4% range.

And do you know what they do with that profit? They pay it to their shareholders who loaned them the money so they could be in business to begin with. And do you know who the shareholders are? The millions of regular everyday Americans who own the stock in the country in their retirement accounts.

 

[AtheismIsReality]

I think that is a pretty delusional statement.

If a company split the salary of the CEO among its employees that MIGHT get an extra cent per paycheck. But the company would lose their CEO and would have to hire a CEO that would work for minimum wage. Instead of a person with a business degree from Harvard they would get a person with a GED who doesn't have the persistence to finish HS the first time. Then when the company was run into the ground they would ALL lose their jobs.

I would also mentioned that I have worked for plenty of companies where the boss did care about the employees. (and companies where the employees did not care about the boss) One of the companies I worked for was resonsible to find jobs for disabled people. Almost every disabled person that I helped get hired was hired at a loss to the company that hired them just because the boss wanted to do something good. Go into any grocery store in this country and you will likely find one or two disabled persons bagging groceries getting paid the same as the other baggers even though in some cases they work half as fast.

Then I would point out that most companies work on a very small profit margin. When you buy a burger at Mcdonald's the markup is only fractions of a cent. The average profit margin of all industries in the US is only about 6%.
http://everydayecon.wordpress.com/2006/04/26/oil-profit-margins-vs-other-industries/
Many like fast food and grocery stores work in much lower percents. The dreaded insurance industry only has profits on the 4% range.

And do you know what they do with that profit? They pay it to their shareholders who loaned them the money so they could be in business to begin with. And do you know who the shareholders are? The millions of regular everyday Americans who own the stock in the country in their retirement accounts.

How are those 401ks doing these days?

 

[AtheismIsReality]

I always enjoy esoteric discussions on things like profit margin.

X has a 6% profit margin.

So what? Especially if X is spending some of that margin on lobbying DC to get tax breaks?

 

[Dr.Who]

How are those 401ks doing these days?

"Obama Declares War on the Profit Motive

When it comes to the healthcare industry, the banking industry, the insurance industry, the oil industry and other sectors of the economy, President Obama and his Ivy League cohorts seem to have declared war on profits and the profit motive. According to President Obama, profits are evil. Profits don’t create jobs or grow the economy; they only serve to enrich the wealthy investor class. Only government can grow the economy. As a self educated neo-economist, let me correct this misconception.

The profit motive is an economic force that generates profits for an individual or company that has invested in a business enterprise. The profits generated by the profit motive are used to grow the business enterprise by expanding its customer base, hiring new employees, and investing in new business ventures. Businesses also use the profit motive to cut costs and improve profit margins, thereby generating more profits. All of this activity spurs economic growth, creates jobs, and raises the standard of living for all those who participate. Only anti-capitalists would consider profits evil. "

http://www.socialmedian.com/story/7757076/obama-declares-war-on-the-profit-motive

 

[Dr.Who]

I always enjoy esoteric discussions on things like profit margin.

X has a 6% profit margin.

So what? Especially if X is spending some of that margin on lobbying DC to get tax breaks?

Spending one's own money on lobbying is free speech.

Changing ones political stance after accepting that money should be criminal. Yet somehow the politicians always legislate away the free speech rather than their own actions.

 

[AtheismIsReality]

Spending one's own money on lobbying is free speech.

And here I thought it was the shareholders' money...

 

[PLC1]

Spending one's own money on lobbying is free speech.

Changing ones political stance after accepting that money should be criminal. Yet somehow the politicians always legislate away the free speech rather than their own actions.

If the politicians never changed their stance after receiving money from a lobbyist, why would anyone spend money on lobbyists? Money is money, it isn't speech. Speech would be trying to persuade a politician to vote a particular way.

 

[AtheismIsReality]

So is the idea that once a politician is bought, he should stay bought?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Spending one's own money on lobbying is free speech.

But that lets rich people buy the elections in the same way that rich people buy justice in the courts, allowing rich people to run the country because they are rich is the philosphy of the robber barons. This is just another example of the twisted mess one gets when a country tries to be both capitalist and Christian--but you can't serve God and Mammon.

 

[dahermit]

Spending one's own money on lobbying is free speech.

The concept that lobbying is free speech is incredibly naive in the light of fairly recent disclosures of lobbyists providing exotic vacations, lavish dinner parties, gifts, campaign contributions, etc. for the politicians. All that is "speech"?

 

[Dr.Who]

And here I thought it was the shareholders' money...

It doesn't become the shareholders money until after it is given to the shareholders.

But the board of directors has a lot of say in how the company that owns the money uses it and they can authorize or object to lobbying.

 

[Dr.Who]

If the politicians never changed their stance after receiving money from a lobbyist, why would anyone spend money on lobbyists? Money is money, it isn't speech. Speech would be trying to persuade a politician to vote a particular way.

The courts have ruled that money used in lobbying is free speech and they are right.

Any company should be able to support any congressman that has positions they like.

The congressmen should not change his position based on who gives him money but he should be strengthened when he first proclaims views that the lobbyist later supports.

 

[Dr.Who]

But that lets rich people buy the elections in the same way that rich people buy justice in the courts, allowing rich people to run the country because they are rich is the philosphy of the robber barons. This is just another example of the twisted mess one gets when a country tries to be both capitalist and Christian--but you can't serve God and Mammon.

That is what lets groups of people who otherwise would have little power band together and pool their resources toward a common goal. P. Obama did very well in the elections in part because he raised far more money than McCain and a huge amount of that money was raised in small donations from individuals.

Many lobbying groups represent millions of individuals who are not rich. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force is a lobby that would be another example of individuals getting a powerful voice do to the power of many lone dollar bills.

Neither rich people nor LGBT lobbies should be able to buy elections but they should both be able to support the candidate they prefer to the fullest. The problem arises when the politician accepts the notion that they don't just support him because of his views but that he should change his views because they support him.

 

[Dr.Who]

The concept that lobbying is free speech is incredibly naive in the light of fairly recent disclosures of lobbyists providing exotic vacations, lavish dinner parties, gifts, campaign contributions, etc. for the politicians. All that is "speech"?

If a lobby offers such things to support a candidate it is speech. when the candidate changes his views because of it then it becomes bribery.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3146
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying

Not only is lobbying considered to be free speech but it is also directly mentioned in the constitution as the "right to petition". It is a basic right "of the people" and is listed specifically in the first amendment as a right of the people.

 

[Andy]

If the politicians never changed their stance after receiving money from a lobbyist, why would anyone spend money on lobbyists? Money is money, it isn't speech. Speech would be trying to persuade a politician to vote a particular way.

So when I give money to the NRA, which then lobbies members of congress to protect my right to bare arms, which is why I gave them the money...

That's not political speech?

So when I give money to Tax Payers Union, which then buys ads on TV exposing the high tax cost of various government plans, which is why I gave them to the money...

That's not political speech?

Oddly the supreme court seem to think it was.

Say, if you can't use money to make political speech... how do you suggest your voice will be heard?