Moral OR Immoral???

[_Jason Bourne]

Personally I think the high pay is problematic and should change. Most CEOs are NOT worth their high pay. Were I to control it I would give a CEO a base of maybe 4-6 times the lowest paid employee and then make EVERYTHING else performance based.

I own part of a small business. We are a professional services type business. In our firm the top owner makes about 5 times what the lowest paid employee makes. If we have large profits we increase staff bonuses substantially. I think we have a pretty good system.

[_asbestosman]

I own part of a small business. We are a professional services type business. In our firm the top owner makes about 5 times what the lowest paid employee makes. If we have large profits we increase staff bonuses substantially. I think we have a pretty good system.

I'm good with that too. But I do wonder whether things change with a large business that has stock traded on the open market. Keep in mind that many workers (like me) have their retirement tied up in various stock funds. I wouldn't be happy if on average my stocks remained stagnant (or even slow growing). I expect a reasonably diverse portfolio to increase at about 9% a year over the long run ( > 10 years). I would expect my broker to sell stock from any company that wasn't making that a priority. If an expensive CEO will help save my retirement, then I don't begrudge it.

Yet it also seems to me that many CEOs aren't actually doing a particularly good job. It is a bit of a mystery to me as to how they get what they do. I don't feel like they necessarily deserve the money. I just don't care much if people are paid more than they're worth unless they are doing it through fraudlent or dishonest means. Since I don't think most are, I simply don't care.

But let's imagine that big businesses tend to take advantage of their employees. Ideally in that case small businesses should become competition for the big ones by attracting workers with competitive benefits and pay. Furthermore, I wouldn't mind getting 5x what the lowest employee at such a place makes, so wouldn't I and many others start my own business? I think because owning and running a business is more risky in many ways as is working for one. I for one am willing to take a bit of a pay cut for more assurance that I'll get a steady paycheck. I also think it likely that there may be more to why CEOs get paid what they do although I've seen no hints as to what it might be with some of the fairly bad performance of many.

[_Mercury]

America's biggest problem is that despite our high standard of living the gap between the rich and everyone else is constantly increasing. I'm convinced the only reason we have not had some mass revamp of society is our new opiate of the masses: entertainment. If all forms of television and the Internet were lost for a year I expect we might see civil war. But I'm a pessimist in these matters. :)

If anything, Entertainment increases the demand for higher grades of lifestyle. Religion is still by far the opiate of the masses.

[_Roger Morrison]

Personally I think the high pay is problematic and should change. Most CEOs are NOT worth their high pay. Were I to control it I would give a CEO a base of maybe 4-6 times the lowest paid employee and then make EVERYTHING else performance based.

I own part of a small business. We are a professional services type business. In our firm the top owner makes about 5 times what the lowest paid employee makes. If we have large profits we increase staff bonuses substantially. I think we have a pretty good system.

Hi Jas, you and your company are to be commended! There have been efforts through the centuries that worked via a cooperative, to everyone's advantage. A Scotish company, name escapes me, was a hall-mark in the 1800s.

I think it might be in Japan(?) where the 7X rule applied. Whether still??? There, the highest paid receive(d) no more than 7 X the lowest paid. Probably one of the factors contributing to Japan's economic, and social success...

There are differences in the approach to the distribution of earnings in Europe and North America. Each with their own advantages, and disadvantages, when considered by differing interests. However, in the interest of wage/salary-earners, who "sweat"--figuratively--to provide the goods-&-services that contribute to the general life-quality of everyone, it seems to me they, for family, and societal reasons should (must?) be protected from exploitation in a "caring" society. Democratic or otherwise.

I guess, how best to do that is the question. Has the USA approach to this been the most successful? For some, absolutely YES! For others, NO! Most have more than third world folks can imagine. OTOH, many European countries have benefits and advatges that Americans do not enjoy in their indoctrination of what constitutes Democracy & Freedom...

I often wonder about the amazing American-Dream, rags-to-riches story of WalMart. The richest retailer in the world got that way by selling to the poor!? Seems something incongruent? Might the public be better served by a different business philosophy that consideres "income" distribution from a perspective other than "self-fortune"?

i.e. Waddawedo with the loot? KEEP IT!! SHARE IT??: with employees--higher wages; with customers--lower prices; with the 'community'--higher taxes, grants, low-interest loans... OK, so there have been some compromises among the strata. But really...

Gotta be converted to TRUE Christianism (that's the Social Gospel, here, not the after-life myth) or annialated by Islaam... YIKES!! Warm regards, Roger

[_bcspace]

Moral OR Immoral???
Are CEOs worth 364 times more than the average Joe/Jane?

Completely moral in a capitalist/christian society.

[_Roger Morrison]

Moral OR Immoral???
Are CEOs worth 364 times more than the average Joe/Jane?

Completely moral in a capitalist/christian society.

Yes, within those parameters you are probably 'correct'. However I wonder IF that makes the practice 'right' from a Christian moralist standpoint; as it tends to exploit the disadvantaged to the benefit of the advantaged. The rich get richer. The poor get poorer...

Makes the greatest masters, rather than servants, as Jesus taught the greatest were to be. Seems some inconsistancy between the christian 'talk' and their 'walk'. Wouldn't you say??? Warm regards, Roger

[_bcspace]

Completely moral in a capitalist/christian society.

Yes, within those parameters you are probably 'correct'. However I wonder IF that makes the practice 'right' from a Christian moralist standpoint;

I would even go so far as to say that a Capitalist/Christian society is the only type of moral society one can have at the moment because it is only in such a society that agency can be exercised.

as it tends to exploit the disadvantaged to the benefit of the advantaged. The rich get richer. The poor get poorer...

Does not follow. See also...Mark 14:7

[_Roger Morrison]

Completely moral in a capitalist/christian society.

Yes, within those parameters you are probably 'correct'. However I wonder IF that makes the practice 'right' from a Christian moralist standpoint;

I would even go so far as to say that a Capitalist/Christian society is the only type of moral society one can have at the moment because it is only in such a society that agency can be exercised.

RM: I guess we could discuss, "what IS moral?"??? However, are you assuming a 'democracy', 'one-party', 'dictatorship', or 'other' where "Capitalist/Christian" folks reside?? Unfortunately "agency" can also be abusive when exercised 'unrighteously'. Don't you agree??

as it tends to exploit the disadvantaged to the benefit of the advantaged. The rich get richer. The poor get poorer...

Does not follow.

RM: Not without exception, of course. OTOH, there seems sufficient empirical evidence to substantiate a general acceptance of the old, often quoted premise. Wouldn't you say?

See also...Mark 14:7 RM: Don't even have to look that one up :-) Of course, "there will always be poor." Does that one statement nullify ALL the others coaching empathy and generousity towards the "poor"? i.e. Laz and the rich man. The rich young ruler. Providing for widows & orphans--that are poor. "There were NO poor among them!"?? What do you think? Do those supposed teachings of Jesus have any merit?

BCS, I'm not sure what your point is??? Might it be better IF, as a society, we were more influenced by Christian principles than by Capitalist principles? Lots of room to debate about Pure Capitalism and Pure Christianism, certainly. But, the reality seems that, generally speaking, Capitalism tends to serve the aggressive amongst us. While Christianity doesn't seem to serve the timid as well as might be expected. Wouldn't you agree? Could there be a better balance?? Warm regards, Roger

[_JAK]

Roger asked: What do You think? Is there inconsistancy (inconsistency) in THE Christian Country, that "Trusts In God," to be so amorous with Mammon? Might the fact of LDS wealth be more of an indictment than Joseph Smith's visions and sex-life?

God notions are irrelevant.

Second, the country trusts in weapons' systems.
CEOs negotiate their high wealth or command it (if they originated the company). It’s a matter of economics.

“LDS wealth” is effective management and transfer of wealth. It’s not unlike the wealth management of any denomination regardless of size. Nor is it unlike a large corporation. The Roman Catholic Church is a larger corporation than the LDS.

JAK

[_JAK]

Roger’s Topic: Moral OR Immoral???


On the question: Moral or Immoral?

Such judgment is subjective and as such is a matter of opinion.
Was it moral or immoral to attack a country (Iraq) on the false claim that it had weapons of mass destruction?

Is it moral or immoral to spend 10 billion dollars a month continuing a war with 160,000 American soldiers fighting -- and for what?

Is it moral or immoral to possess the nuclear capacity to annihilate virtually all the world’s people (that would be the USA in possession)?

Is it moral or immoral to tell people that they can go to “heaven” if they give you (any religious organization) their money?

The questions are intended to demonstrate that a call of “moral or immoral” is a judgment and generally not universal.

In addition, even if we were to consider the question as it stands, and even if we regard something as “immoral,” it’s a relative judgment. Some behavior will be regarded as less immoral than some other behavior which will be regarded as more immoral. The same could be said for a judgment of “moral.”

JAK