Posted on 12/26/2002 9:38:29 AM PST by FlyingA
If he is Michael Jordan's CEO, and the team's profitability allows a considerable payment, then by all means.
Someday, let's discuss the employment practices at SAIC as a comparison.
Then why is it ok to compare the salary of an average CEO of factory workers to the salary of Jordan or Sandler?
You then protest and claim superiority for having published in economics.
I surrender no high ground to you sir, may your search for the "truth" be fruitful.
It's fine with me if CEO's make money but I certainly believe they need to go to prison when it turns out they're nothing but crooks. If any are found that have cooked the books, they need to serve time ---and it shouldn't be in country club prisons, let them be sent to real prisons.
When I said that I had published, it was offered not as achievement but an objective proof that I do not take sides and "worship CEOs," as you stated. True, this is insulting to me, and I did not feel like continuing the discussion. But I replied to your insinuation with a refutation: the work would not pass a peer review if it contained "worship of CEOs."
I have not responded with an insult but merely withdrew wishing you a good night.
You started with maligning CEOs without foundation and ended with doing that to me. Once more, instead of morally neutral explanations you prefer those that put someone in the negative light. It looks like you have a chip on your shoulder that you are trying to offload onto someone else. It's only getting bigger.
I surrender no high ground to you sir, I did not think I participated in a battle: a discussion is not wrestling. Moreover, when I do wrestle, I do not do so with children.
may your search for the "truth" be fruitful. Many thanks, I am doing fine so far and keep learning something new every day. It's always slow and difficult, but that's the nature of the beast --- especially when truth one seeks is not in the quotation marks.
Regards, TQ.
Unfortunately, morality battles cannot be won with courts. We have a culture which places smaller and smaller weight on decency and honor. Eventually, such culture produces from within itself top managers that --- surprise! --- place little weight on decency and honor. The same people that tolerated Clinton's lying in office --- not a single person resigned in disgust from his administration! --- these same people are friends, spouses, mothers, neighbors of the corporate crooks.
For several centuries, the sale of stock on New York Stock Eschange, often worth millions in todays's money, was done by a handshake. There was always a winning and a losing side, of course. But not once did reneging occur once the handshake was made. There were no laws and no centences given out. But our culture had bigger punishments in store: a dishonest person would be isolated, he would lose friends and respect of his wife and children.
When we allow swearing in public, on TV screens, etc. we signal to people that an individual has no duty to society. No people are killed, no wealth is lost from that. But this person grows up thinking that he has no duty. Some become presidents that abuse the highest office; some become CEOs that embezzle money. It is not prison sentences that we need to prevent this from happening.
Exactly. Scratch an economist, or economist-wannabe, and find underneath an apologist multinational shill. As with statistics, in economics one can pretty much prove anything one wants-- just divide the pie in a different arbitrary manner and presto.
At the reality level, this merits a chuckle or two. I would challenge anyone who writes favorably about H1B policy to put themselves in the trenches for a time and experience the effects of the policy firsthand-- something I somehow doubt any H1B advocates ever bother to do.
The damage is not necessarily confined to economics. We are importing thousands of workers from overseas who have, in essence, a fundamentally different idea of what government is and should do in relation to the individual. These folks have little affinity for such cherished notions as the Constitution and Bill of Rights (you will hear from them phrases such as "why do you need that? in my country... [insert third-world socialist policy here]"). Please forgive some of us if we start to roll our eyeballs on hearing this.
And then the imported workers bring their relatives with the same [third-world socialistic, but then socialistic is generally good for multinational business] views.
But, hey, narrow your perspective enough, and align your frame of reference with the current multinational policy being hawked in the bowels of Congress, and any sow's ear becomes a purse. (Now to publish... :-)
You can say that the rewards are worth the pain all you want. But it is all about incrementalism. So go ahead and publish. If we all wake up someday and find a homegrown Bhopal in our own backyards, at least we'll know exactly who deserves the credit.
H1B workers are only supposed to be used IF qualified American (home grown if you will) employees aren't available.
The problem with the Pro-H1B argument is, there are PLENTY of highly-skilled AMERICANS that are out of work, whos jobs are being filled by H1B workers. Now, I may be wrong but I thought this was illegal? The company I work for has to post a job opening and actively recruit for some specific amount of time (which I don't remember at the moment) before they can recruit/hire an H1B employee. That's part of the process of being able to hire an H1B, at least according to our HR/Legal person.
So are you arguing to employ more & cheaper H1B workers in place of American's? If I take out the value/wealth creation argument, that appears to be what you're doing. Again, I may be wrong and if so feel free to correct me.
Regards,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.