PJ Media

88 Goy: “Wow, here’s the sort of exchange one doesn’t often find anymore. Kudos to you AND Marc M.

If I might be permitted to contribute…”

Thanks, GOY! I Appreciate the sentiment. And, by all means, please contribute to the debate. Here we go!

You said, “That said, my question on this suggestion would be: who decides that “certain level”?”

How about an arbitrary maximum possible profit per share of 5% per year. Across the board. All publicly traded companies. Anything above that limit could be paid as a bonus to the workers. It could be considered profit sharing. Said bonus should be the exact same for all workers. Socialism? Probably. Reasonable? To me, yes. To you, probably not.

“Dems’ torpedoing the housing market with extended abuse of CRA regulations. ”

I agree 100%. But the Dems are never going to own up to it. It would be political suicide. The Republicans should beat the Dems over the head with this on a daily basis.

“My suggestion here would be this:…then I’d be very interested in whatever conclusion you do come to.”

I agree with your thought experiment. At the end of the 6 years, if the guy who started the company can reap a 100 million dollar reward, then shouldn’t he feel morally obligated to reward his workers very well? If it’s a small company then shouldn’t all the workers that have made a large contribution to that success be millionaires, too?

“This is a scenario based on the rule, not the exception…”

Of course the execs have a great impact on the bottom line and sure the proportion of those execs that are getting paid (in my opinion) way too much are a definite minority of the whole. And it is unquestioned that they make some very difficult and, at times risky decisions. My arguement is that that small fraction couldn’t possibly be worth as much as they are getting paid. As an example: I recall reading (in WSJ if memory serves) that John Thain originally wanted $20 million per year. I believe he “settled” for $5 million per year. If that’s not extravagant, then I don’t know what is. It even qualifies in McCain’s reconing as wealthy. Noteworthy is the fact that his situation is definitely an outlier. But it is demonstrative of the unequalled greed that’s causing the populist backlash.

“This is a curious statement…”

Here’s the problem (as I see it) with that arguement: Most of the worker bees really don’t have a lot of purchasing power in terms of being able to buy lots of stocks. Sure, they may be able to buy a few shares here and there but it generally isn’t a whole lot–and shares are usually purchased by those folks to be put towards retirement.

“In my experience this is absolutely not true…”

I my experience, excepting intimately small businesses (where each worker is proportionally more important), it is true. Again, this is personal experience and your arguement very well may have merit. I’m confident that your experiences differ from mine. So, on this point I believe it would be prudent for each of us to respectfully disagree with each other.

“The problem here, HJ, is that – like ‘gifts’ and ‘need’ – everyone’s definition of ‘live well’ is different…”

I propose here that anybody who has three homes is living the high life. Again, it comes down to greed.

“I’m sorry to tell you this HJ, but here you are clearly mistaken…”

It is an imperfect analogy, to be sure. And certainly 3rd army wouldn’t have driven 100 miles in three days during the battle of the bulge if it weren’t for George Patton with a bullwhip. Without doubt, Patton deserved every medal and kudo he received-but here’s the difficulty I experience: He was a great leader who rose throught the ranks by way of meritocracy which is the way it should be. But a lot of these execs (as demonstrated by way of the economic difficulties that the whole world is now experiencing) are not good leaders. Therefore, IMHO, they were compensated far in excess of their actual value.

“Here I’d absolutely have to agree…”

A shot in the arm for me. We’re in total agreement on one aspect, anyway.

“Hmmm… I thought you were a serious person until I read this…”

This actually happened to me. It still rankles and always will. Not so much that the guy was rich, but that he might as well have spit in my face. I sort of wish that he had. There would be one less rich jackwad and one more prisoner at Eddyville.

“Well then what you should be working toward is correcting that false perception, which is fomented using class-baiting rhetoric.”

I don’t consider myself to be a class warrior. I’m just fed up with the extravagantly rich kicking sand in the face of the regular folks. A modicum of humility or humbleness would go a long way in this regard.

“We’ve already seen how wealth redistribution works out…”

I’m not advocating totalitarian socialism, but am advocating trying to bring the less-wealthy up without bringing the extravagantly wealthy down. Nor am I advocating wealth redistribution so much as I’m making an attempt to argue my personal vision of what is morally fair with consideration to gainful compensation. It’s my personal morals, here. I feel like your (GOY) morals differ (on this issue) from mine and that is acceptable to me. I don’t expect to convert you or anyone else who has the misfortune to read this, but only to make an attempt to put forth my argument in a reasonable and respectful manner.

“Not sure you could come up with an argument that makes this applicable. But I’ve been wrong before.”

I was trying to add a little levity here while putting forth that I believe the admittedly small proportion of execs who are rolling in the dough, constitute, in my opinion, nothing better than thieves. Again, a personal opinion-and one unquestionably driven, in large part, on emotion.

I humbly respect your arguements to the contrary of what I put forth, and do appreciate the honest, intellectually stimulating, and respectful manner in which this debate has been waged. My thanks to Marc Malone and GOY!