Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Democrats: Let's ban profits!

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2012 11:18:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Posing as an anti-business crusader, Peter Schiff found a number of DNC delegates and attendees who support explicitly outlawing profitability. He deliberately avoided speaking with the occupy protestors camping outside in tents to get a more "mainstream" Democratic perspective from some of the delegates themselves!
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
imabench
Posts: 21,216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2012 11:33:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
didnt somebody else already post this video?
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2012 11:38:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2012 11:35:57 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
I didn't find anything wrong with 1:55-2:35

What do you think would happen to production if there were caps on salaries and net company income?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2012 11:43:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2012 11:38:38 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/9/2012 11:35:57 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
I didn't find anything wrong with 1:55-2:35

What do you think would happen to production if there were caps on salaries and net company income?

Marginal profit caps wouldn't necessarily decrease production. Increased sales would still yield increased profit. And why would there be a cap on income.

For example. Obamacare caps the profit margin of insurance companies to 15%. That kind of cap wouldn't result in limiting profit.
Sapere Aude!
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2012 11:43:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2012 11:38:38 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/9/2012 11:35:57 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
I didn't find anything wrong with 1:55-2:35

What do you think would happen to production if there were caps on salaries and net company income?

Don't forget about what would happen to investments.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2012 11:45:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2012 11:43:52 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 9/9/2012 11:38:38 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/9/2012 11:35:57 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
I didn't find anything wrong with 1:55-2:35

What do you think would happen to production if there were caps on salaries and net company income?

Marginal profit caps wouldn't necessarily decrease production. Increased sales would still yield increased profit. And why would there be a cap on income.

For example. Obamacare caps the profit margin of insurance companies to 15%. That kind of cap wouldn't result in limiting profit.
To clarify, I'm not saying I agree with it, but I don't kind anything wrong with someone who believes that.

I'm pretty sure the majority of Americans would even support salary caps for big business execs.
Sapere Aude!
imabench
Posts: 21,216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2012 11:50:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I dont agree with ANYTHING said in that video by those derps, the only thing I would even consider thinking about would be a law where a CEO's salary can be no more than 300 times that of the lowest employee (the average in America is 187 so dont freak out just yet), and thats literally the only thing I could think of.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2012 12:00:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2012 11:50:50 PM, imabench wrote:
I dont agree with ANYTHING said in that video by those derps, the only thing I would even consider thinking about would be a law where a CEO's salary can be no more than 300 times that of the lowest employee (the average in America is 187 so dont freak out just yet), and thats literally the only thing I could think of.

WTF would that change? How many people make $4.5 million a year (not including corporate income)? You only need to make $344 thousand to be in the top 1%.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2012 12:00:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2012 11:50:50 PM, imabench wrote:
I dont agree with ANYTHING said in that video by those derps, the only thing I would even consider thinking about would be a law where a CEO's salary can be no more than 300 times that of the lowest employee (the average in America is 187 so dont freak out just yet), and thats literally the only thing I could think of.

Then why do you even need a cap at 300? What if a company's board of directors wants to hire a bada$$ CFO or CIO or CEO that is worth 350x the lowest workers salary to them? Should they not be able to make that bid, or should they artificially inflate the salaries of their lowest workers by the law that will force them to let some of the workers go? Either way, the law reduces the production of the firm and the benefits to the consumers by either 1) Disallowing them from hiring the CEO to become more competitive and serve their customers better (with their lowest employees making the same) or 2) Forcing them to raise the lowest-paid workers' salaries and increasing unemployment and/or passing the higher prices on to consumers .
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
imabench
Posts: 21,216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2012 12:15:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2012 12:00:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/9/2012 11:50:50 PM, imabench wrote:
I dont agree with ANYTHING said in that video by those derps, the only thing I would even consider thinking about would be a law where a CEO's salary can be no more than 300 times that of the lowest employee (the average in America is 187 so dont freak out just yet), and thats literally the only thing I could think of.

Then why do you even need a cap at 300? What if a company's board of directors wants to hire a bada$$ CFO or CIO or CEO that is worth 350x the lowest workers salary to them? Should they not be able to make that bid, or should they artificially inflate the salaries of their lowest workers by the law that will force them to let some of the workers go?

Seriously dude? Raising someones pay by $100 more a year allows a company to pay its CEO $30,000 more a year, if youre trying to paint this illusion that companies will have to lay off workers to pay their boss more money then its pretty inaccurate.

Either way, the law reduces the production of the firm and the benefits to the consumers by either 1) Disallowing them from hiring the CEO to become more competitive and serve their customers better (with their lowest employees making the same)

So youre arguing that companies blowing maybe a couple thousand dollars on the lowest earning employees so they could drastically increase a salary for the CEO would drive them to the ground? Only a fraction of companies would be affected by this at all since 300x is way above the actual average and beyond that its just flat out greed.

or 2) Forcing them to raise the lowest-paid workers' salaries and increasing unemployment and/or passing the higher prices on to consumers .

Because its common economic knowledge that a corporation that can afford to pay its CEO $4o million a year couldnt raise the salaries of its lowest employees (just the lowest, not everybody else) by a couple hundred dollars..... (/sarcasm)
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
imabench
Posts: 21,216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2012 12:16:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2012 12:00:09 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/9/2012 11:50:50 PM, imabench wrote:
I dont agree with ANYTHING said in that video by those derps, the only thing I would even consider thinking about would be a law where a CEO's salary can be no more than 300 times that of the lowest employee (the average in America is 187 so dont freak out just yet), and thats literally the only thing I could think of.

WTF would that change? How many people make $4.5 million a year (not including corporate income)? You only need to make $344 thousand to be in the top 1%.

It wouldnt affect anybody at all except the greediest mother f*ckers out there!!!
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2012 12:30:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2012 12:16:25 AM, imabench wrote:
At 9/10/2012 12:00:09 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/9/2012 11:50:50 PM, imabench wrote:
I dont agree with ANYTHING said in that video by those derps, the only thing I would even consider thinking about would be a law where a CEO's salary can be no more than 300 times that of the lowest employee (the average in America is 187 so dont freak out just yet), and thats literally the only thing I could think of.

WTF would that change? How many people make $4.5 million a year (not including corporate income)? You only need to make $344 thousand to be in the top 1%.

It wouldnt affect anybody at all except the greediest mother f*ckers out there!!!

So, since they made wealth by offering a product/service at a price that people want, they're bad; but, you want to use violence to greedily steal money from them, and that's good? Wtf...
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2012 12:39:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2012 12:15:47 AM, imabench wrote:
At 9/10/2012 12:00:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/9/2012 11:50:50 PM, imabench wrote:
I dont agree with ANYTHING said in that video by those derps, the only thing I would even consider thinking about would be a law where a CEO's salary can be no more than 300 times that of the lowest employee (the average in America is 187 so dont freak out just yet), and thats literally the only thing I could think of.

Then why do you even need a cap at 300? What if a company's board of directors wants to hire a bada$$ CFO or CIO or CEO that is worth 350x the lowest workers salary to them? Should they not be able to make that bid, or should they artificially inflate the salaries of their lowest workers by the law that will force them to let some of the workers go?

Seriously dude? Raising someones pay by $100 more a year allows a company to pay its CEO $30,000 more a year, if youre trying to paint this illusion that companies will have to lay off workers to pay their boss more money then its pretty inaccurate.

Nope, if the CEO is worth that wage (price) to the company, then they should be allowed to attract the CEO at that wage. One of the law's effects would be to decrease the employment number of its lowest workers in response to the higher price to pay for their labor in order to higher the CEO in accordance with the law. The same thing happens with the minimum wage. Baby's first Econ.

Either way, the law reduces the production of the firm and the benefits to the consumers by either 1) Disallowing them from hiring the CEO to become more competitive and serve their customers better (with their lowest employees making the same)

So youre arguing that companies blowing maybe a couple thousand dollars on the lowest earning employees so they could drastically increase a salary for the CEO would drive them to the ground? Only a fraction of companies would be affected by this at all since 300x is way above the actual average and beyond that its just flat out greed.

No, I'm saying it would decrease the production of the firm. I'm defending freedom of companies to choose to pay whatever they want for employees and embrace the consequences of the actions themselves instead of using government violence to enforce immoral laws.

or 2) Forcing them to raise the lowest-paid workers' salaries and increasing unemployment and/or passing the higher prices on to consumers .

Because its common economic knowledge that a corporation that can afford to pay its CEO $4o million a year couldnt raise the salaries of its lowest employees (just the lowest, not everybody else) by a couple hundred dollars..... (/sarcasm)

If you think that it can, good for you. It doesn't usually happen in real life though, and using the violence of government to back up your indignation is counterproductive and immoral. Look at the regulatory penalties placed on financial services firms, they resulted in higher fees for customers. Minimum wage laws result in unemployment. Government intervention in economics almost always leads to unintended consequences that hurt the people they are supposed to represent.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
imabench
Posts: 21,216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2012 12:42:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2012 12:30:59 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/10/2012 12:16:25 AM, imabench wrote:
At 9/10/2012 12:00:09 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/9/2012 11:50:50 PM, imabench wrote:
I dont agree with ANYTHING said in that video by those derps, the only thing I would even consider thinking about would be a law where a CEO's salary can be no more than 300 times that of the lowest employee (the average in America is 187 so dont freak out just yet), and thats literally the only thing I could think of.

WTF would that change? How many people make $4.5 million a year (not including corporate income)? You only need to make $344 thousand to be in the top 1%.

It wouldnt affect anybody at all except the greediest mother f*ckers out there!!!

So, since they made wealth by offering a product/service at a price that people want, they're bad; but, you want to use violence to greedily steal money from them, and that's good? Wtf...

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Oh wait you seriously meant that...

The CEO didnt make the product dude.... The designers thought of it, the engineers came up with a prototype, other engineers made it cost effective, then manual laborers manufactured it in large numbers. The CEO has minimal impact on anything they do so stop trying to make them look like God.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
imabench
Posts: 21,216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2012 12:54:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2012 12:39:08 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/10/2012 12:15:47 AM, imabench wrote:
At 9/10/2012 12:00:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/9/2012 11:50:50 PM, imabench wrote:
I dont agree with ANYTHING said in that video by those derps, the only thing I would even consider thinking about would be a law where a CEO's salary can be no more than 300 times that of the lowest employee (the average in America is 187 so dont freak out just yet), and thats literally the only thing I could think of.

Then why do you even need a cap at 300? What if a company's board of directors wants to hire a bada$$ CFO or CIO or CEO that is worth 350x the lowest workers salary to them? Should they not be able to make that bid, or should they artificially inflate the salaries of their lowest workers by the law that will force them to let some of the workers go?

Seriously dude? Raising someones pay by $100 more a year allows a company to pay its CEO $30,000 more a year, if youre trying to paint this illusion that companies will have to lay off workers to pay their boss more money then its pretty inaccurate.

Nope, if the CEO is worth that wage (price) to the company, then they should be allowed to attract the CEO at that wage. One of the law's effects would be to decrease the employment number of its lowest workers in response to the higher price to pay for their labor in order to higher the CEO in accordance with the law. The same thing happens with the minimum wage. Baby's first Econ.

You do realize they can make up that minimum amount of expense through any number of things that wont do irreparable harm to the company right? Or are you just that easy to manipulate by other morons?

Either way, the law reduces the production of the firm and the benefits to the consumers by either 1) Disallowing them from hiring the CEO to become more competitive and serve their customers better (with their lowest employees making the same)

So youre arguing that companies blowing maybe a couple thousand dollars on the lowest earning employees so they could drastically increase a salary for the CEO would drive them to the ground? Only a fraction of companies would be affected by this at all since 300x is way above the actual average and beyond that its just flat out greed.

No, I'm saying it would decrease the production of the firm. I'm defending freedom of companies to choose to pay whatever they want for employees and embrace the consequences of the actions themselves instead of using government violence to enforce immoral laws.

So your in favor of companies behaving irresponsibly more than one law that would only affect a fraction of companies prevent CEO's from taking a disproportionally large amount of the companies profits for no good reason. Who are you voting for exactly? Ill give my vote to the other person.

or 2) Forcing them to raise the lowest-paid workers' salaries and increasing unemployment and/or passing the higher prices on to consumers .

Because its common economic knowledge that a corporation that can afford to pay its CEO $4o million a year couldnt raise the salaries of its lowest employees (just the lowest, not everybody else) by a couple hundred dollars..... (/sarcasm)

If you think that it can, good for you. It doesn't usually happen in real life though, and using the violence of government to back up your indignation is counterproductive and immoral. Look at the regulatory penalties placed on financial services firms, they resulted in higher fees for customers. Minimum wage laws result in unemployment. Government intervention in economics almost always leads to unintended consequences that hurt the people they are supposed to represent.

Oh, this isnt one of those things where you just let people give their opinions over something to you is it? This is just a stereotypical fighting against government intervention and those who even ponder it kind of thing to you, figures....
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2012 1:01:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2012 12:42:14 AM, imabench wrote:
At 9/10/2012 12:30:59 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/10/2012 12:16:25 AM, imabench wrote:
At 9/10/2012 12:00:09 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/9/2012 11:50:50 PM, imabench wrote:
I dont agree with ANYTHING said in that video by those derps, the only thing I would even consider thinking about would be a law where a CEO's salary can be no more than 300 times that of the lowest employee (the average in America is 187 so dont freak out just yet), and thats literally the only thing I could think of.

WTF would that change? How many people make $4.5 million a year (not including corporate income)? You only need to make $344 thousand to be in the top 1%.

It wouldnt affect anybody at all except the greediest mother f*ckers out there!!!

So, since they made wealth by offering a product/service at a price that people want, they're bad; but, you want to use violence to greedily steal money from them, and that's good? Wtf...

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Oh wait you seriously meant that...

The CEO didnt make the product dude.... The designers thought of it, the engineers came up with a prototype, other engineers made it cost effective, then manual laborers manufactured it in large numbers. The CEO has minimal impact on anything they do so stop trying to make them look like God.

Where did I say they made the product? In many cases it is their capital, vision, and direction that finance and evolve the products, but some have quite limited roles. If you think the CEO has such a minimal impact on a company, then it begs the question: Why does every successful company have an active and highly-paid CEO? The CEO has tremendous impact in the company because he is the final decision-maker on many important decisions for the company including production sites, deals, coordinating resources and activities, strategic planning, organization, negotiating prices and mergers, etc.. even the name suggests this: Chief Executive Officer.

The CEO is an incredibly important role in a company, which doesn't mean they are supernatural deities, just skilled businesspeople.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
imabench
Posts: 21,216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2012 1:11:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2012 1:01:45 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:

Where did I say they made the product? In many cases it is their capital, vision, and direction that finance and evolve the products, but some have quite limited roles. If you think the CEO has such a minimal impact on a company, then it begs the question: Why does every successful company have an active and highly-paid CEO?

Steve Jobs was CEO of the most successful company of all time and he had an annual salary of $1 a year

http://www.redmondpie.com...

Nice try, better luck next time <3
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2012 1:14:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2012 12:54:06 AM, imabench wrote:
At 9/10/2012 12:39:08 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/10/2012 12:15:47 AM, imabench wrote:
At 9/10/2012 12:00:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/9/2012 11:50:50 PM, imabench wrote:
I dont agree with ANYTHING said in that video by those derps, the only thing I would even consider thinking about would be a law where a CEO's salary can be no more than 300 times that of the lowest employee (the average in America is 187 so dont freak out just yet), and thats literally the only thing I could think of.

Then why do you even need a cap at 300? What if a company's board of directors wants to hire a bada$$ CFO or CIO or CEO that is worth 350x the lowest workers salary to them? Should they not be able to make that bid, or should they artificially inflate the salaries of their lowest workers by the law that will force them to let some of the workers go?

Seriously dude? Raising someones pay by $100 more a year allows a company to pay its CEO $30,000 more a year, if youre trying to paint this illusion that companies will have to lay off workers to pay their boss more money then its pretty inaccurate.

Nope, if the CEO is worth that wage (price) to the company, then they should be allowed to attract the CEO at that wage. One of the law's effects would be to decrease the employment number of its lowest workers in response to the higher price to pay for their labor in order to higher the CEO in accordance with the law. The same thing happens with the minimum wage. Baby's first Econ.

You do realize they can make up that minimum amount of expense through any number of things that wont do irreparable harm to the company right? Or are you just that easy to manipulate by other morons?

If they plan on recuperating losses incurred by legislative unproductivity, then they charge higher prices to consumers. Higher prices = less demand (ceteris paribus). There's no escaping the truism that laws cannot create prosperity. If you don't really care about consumers, or the fact that finances are the #1 cause of relationship stress and breakups, then yeah, fvck productivity and retarding economic incentives! But, in reality salary/company caps will hurt consumers and/or the companies.

Either way, the law reduces the production of the firm and the benefits to the consumers by either 1) Disallowing them from hiring the CEO to become more competitive and serve their customers better (with their lowest employees making the same)

So youre arguing that companies blowing maybe a couple thousand dollars on the lowest earning employees so they could drastically increase a salary for the CEO would drive them to the ground? Only a fraction of companies would be affected by this at all since 300x is way above the actual average and beyond that its just flat out greed.

No, I'm saying it would decrease the production of the firm. I'm defending freedom of companies to choose to pay whatever they want for employees and embrace the consequences of the actions themselves instead of using government violence to enforce immoral laws.

So your in favor of companies behaving irresponsibly more than one law that would only affect a fraction of companies prevent CEO's from taking a disproportionally large amount of the companies profits for no good reason. Who are you voting for exactly? Ill give my vote to the other person.

you're*
I'm in favor of economic freedom and the mutually beneficial competition it generates. The CEO doesn't "take" profits, the board of directors determines the CEO's salary based on his labor productivity. They wouldn't hire him if they thought it was not in the best interest of the company.
I don't vote because I have self-respect. If you vote either Republican or Democrat, you're voting for the increasingly unjustified power-structure they have given corporations in this country to make unjustified amounts of money without properly serving their customers. So, if you generate shitty circumstances that lead to political entrepreneurship, then you need regulations, bizarre tax codes, caps, etc to pseudo-fix the clusterfvck you got yourself into, which also reduces production even more by divertin resources to pay for corrupt regulators and enforcement of more unjust laws (HINT: it doesn't fvcking work this way).

However, under free market capitalism, people (brace yourself for a revolutionary idea) GET TO KEEP WHAT THEY FVCKING EARN. Stealing is immoral regardless of what style hat someone is wearing.

or 2) Forcing them to raise the lowest-paid workers' salaries and increasing unemployment and/or passing the higher prices on to consumers .

Because its common economic knowledge that a corporation that can afford to pay its CEO $4o million a year couldnt raise the salaries of its lowest employees (just the lowest, not everybody else) by a couple hundred dollars..... (/sarcasm)

If you think that it can, good for you. It doesn't usually happen in real life though, and using the violence of government to back up your indignation is counterproductive and immoral. Look at the regulatory penalties placed on financial services firms, they resulted in higher fees for customers. Minimum wage laws result in unemployment. Government intervention in economics almost always leads to unintended consequences that hurt the people they are supposed to represent.

Oh, this isnt one of those things where you just let people give their opinions over something to you is it? This is just a stereotypical fighting against government intervention and those who even ponder it kind of thing to you, figures....

You haven't really made any arguments and have instead resorted to petty insults, which is a implicit sign of intellectual defeat. I don't want someone's opinion being violently enforced by government over peaceful trading; that harms the consumer and producer.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2012 1:19:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2012 1:11:26 AM, imabench wrote:
At 9/10/2012 1:01:45 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:

Where did I say they made the product? In many cases it is their capital, vision, and direction that finance and evolve the products, but some have quite limited roles. If you think the CEO has such a minimal impact on a company, then it begs the question: Why does every successful company have an active and highly-paid CEO?

Steve Jobs was CEO of the most successful company of all time and he had an annual salary of $1 a year

http://www.redmondpie.com...

Nice try, better luck next time <3

Hmm.. was that before or after he made millions of dollars? Also, he received stock options until 2003. At any rate, this was his VOLUNTARY choice. He chose not to take a salary from Apple largely because he already earned enough money in his career and owned enough Apple stock to live comfortably on. You, on the other hand, are in favor of the government placing caps on salaries and companies. That is basically like saying: there is no way I can be persuasive enough to make a CEO choose to take a lower salary, so I need the violence of government to enforce my opinion.

Do you think it is better to receive charity or to work for a living?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2012 1:22:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Interesting substance I found on the $1 a year salary:

Several top executives in large businesses receive a salary of one United States dollar. In place of a salary, the executives receive stock options. In the United States, this approach impacts personal tax liability because although stock and option grants are taxed at federal income rates, they are exempt from payroll taxes (typically around 15%) used to fund Social Security and Medicare.
Executives argue that remuneration through stock instead of salary ties management performance to their financial benefits. The assumption is that stock prices will reflect the actual value of a company, which reflect the management performance of the company. Detractors argue that this incentive may drive short-term planning over long-term planning.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
imabench
Posts: 21,216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2012 1:25:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2012 1:14:05 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:

However, under free market capitalism, people (brace yourself for a revolutionary idea) GET TO KEEP WHAT THEY FVCKING EARN. Stealing is immoral regardless of what style hat someone is wearing.

oh thats right! I forgot that people always get to keep what they earn and totally dont have to pay taxes or anything.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
imabench
Posts: 21,216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2012 1:26:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2012 1:19:33 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/10/2012 1:11:26 AM, imabench wrote:
At 9/10/2012 1:01:45 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:

Where did I say they made the product? In many cases it is their capital, vision, and direction that finance and evolve the products, but some have quite limited roles. If you think the CEO has such a minimal impact on a company, then it begs the question: Why does every successful company have an active and highly-paid CEO?

Steve Jobs was CEO of the most successful company of all time and he had an annual salary of $1 a year

http://www.redmondpie.com...

Nice try, better luck next time <3

Hmm.. was that before or after he made millions of dollars? Also, he received stock options until 2003. At any rate, this was his VOLUNTARY choice. He chose not to take a salary from Apple largely because he already earned enough money in his career and owned enough Apple stock to live comfortably on.

So you concede that CEO's dont need humongous salaries to run a corporation effectively, noted.

You, on the other hand, are in favor of the government placing caps on salaries and companies.

This would affect less than 1% of them you dumba**
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
imabench
Posts: 21,216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2012 1:28:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2012 1:22:16 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Interesting substance I found on the $1 a year salary:

Several top executives in large businesses receive a salary of one United States dollar. In place of a salary, the executives receive stock options. In the United States, this approach impacts personal tax liability because although stock and option grants are taxed at federal income rates, they are exempt from payroll taxes (typically around 15%) used to fund Social Security and Medicare.
Executives argue that remuneration through stock instead of salary ties management performance to their financial benefits. The assumption is that stock prices will reflect the actual value of a company, which reflect the management performance of the company. Detractors argue that this incentive may drive short-term planning over long-term planning.

So since my idea places no limit on stock options or anything else you posted in here and will effect a minute number of companies at all it still counts as driving companies into death from government regulation?

You poor, poor soul.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
imabench
Posts: 21,216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2012 1:31:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ill talk to you in the morning, its 230 AM and I have an 8am class tomorrow >.<
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2012 1:36:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2012 1:25:04 AM, imabench wrote:
At 9/10/2012 1:14:05 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:

However, under free market capitalism, people (brace yourself for a revolutionary idea) GET TO KEEP WHAT THEY FVCKING EARN. Stealing is immoral regardless of what style hat someone is wearing.

oh thats right! I forgot that people always get to keep what they earn and totally dont have to pay taxes or anything.

Read the bolded.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2012 1:42:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2012 1:26:48 AM, imabench wrote:
At 9/10/2012 1:19:33 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/10/2012 1:11:26 AM, imabench wrote:
At 9/10/2012 1:01:45 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:

Where did I say they made the product? In many cases it is their capital, vision, and direction that finance and evolve the products, but some have quite limited roles. If you think the CEO has such a minimal impact on a company, then it begs the question: Why does every successful company have an active and highly-paid CEO?

Steve Jobs was CEO of the most successful company of all time and he had an annual salary of $1 a year

http://www.redmondpie.com...

Nice try, better luck next time <3

Hmm.. was that before or after he made millions of dollars? Also, he received stock options until 2003. At any rate, this was his VOLUNTARY choice. He chose not to take a salary from Apple largely because he already earned enough money in his career and owned enough Apple stock to live comfortably on.

So you concede that CEO's dont need humongous salaries to run a corporation effectively, noted.

Never was a point of contention. I said that companies' board of directors wouldn't be able to compete for CEOs if there was an arbitrary cap on the salary like what the video or you are proposing. This impedes the labor market's efficiency, and if the cap is something like $50 million, then it doesn't account for inflation or other factors.

You, on the other hand, are in favor of the government placing caps on salaries and companies.

This would affect less than 1% of them you dumba**

That's what you've individually proposed, not what these other mainstream democrats have proposed. Plus, this ignores my points of impeding labor market inefficiency, higher prices for consumers, etc.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2012 1:45:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2012 1:28:25 AM, imabench wrote:
At 9/10/2012 1:22:16 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Interesting substance I found on the $1 a year salary:

Several top executives in large businesses receive a salary of one United States dollar. In place of a salary, the executives receive stock options. In the United States, this approach impacts personal tax liability because although stock and option grants are taxed at federal income rates, they are exempt from payroll taxes (typically around 15%) used to fund Social Security and Medicare.
Executives argue that remuneration through stock instead of salary ties management performance to their financial benefits. The assumption is that stock prices will reflect the actual value of a company, which reflect the management performance of the company. Detractors argue that this incentive may drive short-term planning over long-term planning.

So since my idea places no limit on stock options or anything else you posted in here and will effect a minute number of companies at all it still counts as driving companies into death from government regulation?

You poor, poor soul.

The video wasn't just addressing salaries but the total profit that a company and its employees make. Being given $10 million worth of stocks that you can sell is in some respects better than a salary if a company is expanding and increasing profits, which results in a higher stock price and higher dividends. Why do you find it necessary to make assertions followed by insults?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2012 8:55:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Funny how the Democrats are all in favour of consumer and worker rights and etc... when in reality, it's the consumer and the worker who are perpetrating these "high wages."
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."