Salary envy
Danny Lemieux on Feb 03 2011 at 9:36 am | Filed under: Economics, Leftist morality, Uncategorized
I attended a family gathering not long ago, liberally populated with Liberal in-laws, in which the mood was decidedly sour. Discussions revolved around the poor job market, employment uncertainty and health insurance.
In conversations, a lot of resentment was directed at corporations, CEOs and their “disgusting and greedy” profits, salaries, benefits and bonuses. I understand (but don’t excuse) much of this as pure envy, a failing that I see expressed far more in Liberal/Left circles than conservative circles. I should also point out that some of this is the bitterness expressed by people that were pretty casual about their own work ethics and careers and now, in middle age, confront an uncertain future, not to mention retirement prospects. We all make critical decisions at key junctures in life with which we have to live.
I have also known and worked with enough CEOs and senior execs with large corporations to know that they work under highly stressful conditions and in between short, sleepless nights. The ones that I have known were extremely hard workers 24/7 and I, personally, value my quality of life far too much to envy them their salaries and perks (we don’t need to explore how seriously pathetic many of their personal and family lives are). Anyway, I consider envy a particularly ugly member of the deadly sins.
One irony is that my Liberal/Left relatives (some of whom purport to be very well educated) apparently cannot draw the connection between corporate profitability, personal incentives and a healthy jobs market. I can understand this to be the case with college students (sophomoric minds full of mush), but working adults have no excuse.
However, what floors me, is that these same Liberal/Lefty in-laws seem to have no trouble accepting the extraordinary high incomes of a) sports figures and b) entertainment figures (newscasters, movie actors, television personalities, etc.).
Sports figures that play games to entertain, singers that…sing songs…, actresses that pretend to be people they aren’t (when they do work) and newscasters that read copy from teleprompters are idolized.
Corporate executives that manufacture services and products that improve our lives (drugs, fuel, cars, food, shelter, insurance, bank loans, etc.) are vilified.
Why is this the case? Any ideas? Please help to understand.
Email This Post To A Friend
59 Responses to “Salary envy”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
It’s because weak people naturally devolve to cruelty.
I just received a visit from two Jehovah’s witnesses. I first noticed that I was standing a lot taller than the two women (one from Africa, the other from Japan), so I stepped down off the threshold, outside, so I wasn’t towering over them. Why? Because I felt no need to wear a mantle of false superiority. A Leftist would enjoy such false trappings of power and influence.
Because I had something on hold at the time, I invited them in out of the cold, rather than making them wait outside at the door. Why? Because if they are going to at my home for any prolonged period of time, that makes me a host and a host has responsibilities as well as duties. It’s a costless courtesy to invite them in so that they didn’t have to wait outside.
A Leftist would feel afraid, whether physically or spiritually from these people going on about God. They would be worried about showing basic courtesy because their fear controls them, cowards that they be.
I have no particular worries that I will be “converted” if I speak kindly to two women. Nor if it was two male Witnesses would I ever be all that worried about my physical security.
Hostility is the opposite of courtesy and politeness. While courtesy and politeness comes from a solid foundation in strength, hostility often comes as a result of personal weaknesses or even perceived weaknesses.
The Left, however, instead of feeling contempt for their lack of power, use their instincts to create more victims and sacrifices for their own self-aggrandizement and power ambitions. It’s disgusting. I will always feel more contempt for the so called “pacifists” and “social equalizers” of the Left than I would ever feel for the Islamic women beating targets calling themselves jihadis. And that’s a lot when you consider who I’m talking about. At least the jihadis will do what it takes to make their Utopia true. The Left, instead, wants to sit on the couch, vegetate, and use others to get what they desire. They don’t even got the balls to come right out and admit the truth of their aims and objectives. They are always hiding, always trying to sneak around like thieves or assassins, without the guts of either. Jihadists may be foolish, delusional, and evil, but at least they are willing to go the full mile. The Left? Not so much.
Danny, those whiners are weak pathetic people at heart. They lack a fundamental core called “strength”. Whether you call it strength of character, morals, or anything else, doesn’t really matter. They lack it.
They cannot live with themselves if they didn’t have someone they could blame. They couldn’t live with themselves, Danny, literally, if they couldn’t complain about how it is the fault of others. They couldn’t face themselves in the mirror every day as their allies trod upon the fallen children and the sacrificed citizens of America, if they admitted the real truth about themselves and their beliefs.
I, on the other hand, am not afraid of having my beliefs challenged or even changed. Somebody has something to say to me, a problem perhaps, bring it on. Whispering dark nothings behind people’s backs don’t count. If Jehovah’s Witnesses believe so strongly in their religion and their evangelism, I’ll give them a chance and hear them out. What should I be afraid of? Is their strength somehow sucking away my own? Is the fact that they have conviction and are able to produce results such as walking in freezing weather all the time, somehow a BAD THING to me?
Is it. Is it really? To the Left, they would think “yes it is, other people’s successes result only because they took away MY RIGHTFUL PLACE”. That’s how they think, Danny. And that’s how they are damned.
We don’t criticize what we slaver over. Top managers and executives work their butts off, tend not to be witty or physically attractive (except to market analysts
) and are usually unhip and unfashionable–even the ones who sell hip and fashionable things. (note: I always found Steve Jobs cute, but I suffer from a lifelong weakness for nerds)
Entertainers and athletes also work their butts off, but sell an image of ease and glamour and sexuality.
Who wouldn’t chose to be Christina Aguilera over Christine Whitman?
kali, I think your take is spot on.
Ymarsakar, thank you for a clear exposition on how courteous people think and act. Your example reminds me of a story my mother told me about an incident that happened the year I was born. The Jehovah’s Witnesses were holding their annual worldwide conclave in the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, which was about 5 miles from where we lived. Attendees had to be housed, so representatives of the Witnesses fanned out over a 10-mile radius from the stadium to seek lodging for them.
One day a JW man knocked at our door. My mother was in her seventh month with me. She answered the knock and listened as he explained his mission. When he was done, she politely said, “Well, this is a Catholic household and I don’t think you would feel comfortable here.” She began to close the door.
The man pushed his knee between the door and its frame to keep her from closing it, then said in a loud voice, “But you are the people who need us the most!”
For years afterwards my mother would tell me that the sound of our front door smashing hard against that man’s knee was one of her most pleasant memories.
God drags Moses up to the top of Mount Sinai and tells him just ten things; the Ten Commandments. Roughly they break down into thirds–mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself, and respect the Man.
In keeping your hands to yourself, we have injunctions against murder, stealing, adultery and coveting your neighbor’s wife and stuff. So depending on how you keep count, envy must have been a pretty big deal back then since fifty percent of what God had to say somehow dealt with wanting to grab what wasn’t yours.
We now have whole ideologies, the Democrats are the best example of our home-grown version, based on missing out on half of the Ten Commandments.
That is a brilliantly concise take on the Ten Commandments, cerumendoc. Definitely a keeper.
Ymarsakar, thank you for a clear exposition on how courteous people think and act.
I’ve noticed from the two incidents I’ve had with JWitnesses is that they often times use women now a days. They mention their husbands after we started up a conversation. I invited them back if they wished to talk more. I’m always open to a fun conversation. I told them straight out that I made no promise to believe what they claimed as true. Otherwise, there was no need to press my point any further.
They intentionally use their women as the spokespeople because females lower the guard of others, especially males.
This is the view I got from just two exposures to the JW, over the last 5 years.
If it was me, I’m not sure I would be willing to have my women take risks and meet face to face with strangers, without me there as a guard and watchdog in case of trouble. It is another indication of conviction, strength to me. They truly believe in what they are doing. Otherwise they would play it much safer. Not the same kind of strength as H2H lethal force application strength, but a strength nonetheless. One that should be respected for what it is, rather than feared by the mindlessly pathetic parasites in existence.
I give respect where it is due. Not when it is demanded.
I suspect entertainers and athletes are not perceived to be bosses, but either independent contractors or very highly paid employees, and the perception they are making their fortune by “exploiting” the labor of others is missing. People perceive CEO’s, OTOH, do realize their riches through the labor of others. I hasten to add I don’t believe the “exploitation” view has merit.
Charles, I believe that to be a complete person one needs to be strong in many things. Whether you call it skill, wisdom, life experience, or common sense matters not. It is what it is, even under a thousand different names.
I also believe that to be a complete and healthy individual, on one hand you need to wield the power of destruction and on the other hand, the power of mercy, compassion, healing, and comfort. An individual that only knows one half of the whole, is incomplete. Just as a household is often incomplete without a father and mother with children.
The more destructive power you can wield, the more you need to know how to heal and save others for there to be balance in life. For without balance, problems can ensue.
It is no accident that some of the most professional individuals in the US Marines and infantry branches are also the most lethal on the battlefield. There is a connection there. Just as there is a connection between Jarret’s behavior and her “social status” and self-perception.
To address the points Johnston made, Hollywood functions upon the backs of many working class individuals in the service industry. Such as makeup artists, camera men, technicians, and so forth. The salary of a cameraman in a movie set is how much compared to a movie star’s? Yet the Left never mentions the disparity in INCOMES there, now do they.
The exploitation charge can be implemented for both mining companies and movie studios. The key difference is not that CEOs are thought to hold responsibility and power over others. The key difference is the propaganda “status consciousness” that has been imprinted on people to ignore the inequalities of income when the Left makes money all the while transferring attention to their arch nemesis or useful dupes that can be coerced to bend to the Leftist Alliance’s mutual goals of Utopian social engineering. The key isn’t in “what people think”. It is in “what people can be made to think”.
Yes, of course, people view CEOs differently than movie stars. Of course they view unionized workers differently than the writers and other workers of Hollywood. Of course. But the reason why it is so isn’t because one is a CEO and the other works in Hollywood. The reason is due to the propaganda and mental delusions enforced by money and intentional projects.
You will never hear the Left advance a “tax on music” or a “tax on movies” in order to fund their Social Utopian dreams. It will always be the “other rich” guys they want to soak. That’s intentional and on purpose. It’s no accident. It’s not because one is a CEO of a business or big corp and the other is a Hollywood director known for raping under aged girls. The difference is in the propaganda. If Propaganda says so, people can be made to love CEOs and hate Hollywood directors. If Propaganda says so, people can be made to love Hollywood directors and hate CEOs.
Under propaganda, illusion, it doesn’t matter “what the reality” is. Because you can make reality however you wish, using the Left’s illusion making capabilities. Of course there is a limit. There is a limit to all mortal power. But the Left has had centuries to overcome those limits.
Well, aristocrats have long looked down on those who are “in trade.” In 1800s and early 1900s Britain, it seems the hierarchy was: best to be a landowner living entirely off one’s rents, next-best to be a government official or military officer, marginally acceptable to be in banking, and really low-status to be involved in manufacturing or, even worse, retail trade.
Of course, traditional aristocrats, at least of the British flavor, looked down on actors/entertainers/writers, too.
Of course, traditional aristocrats, at least of the British flavor, looked down on actors/entertainers/writers, too.
In those days, actors were poor and didn’t have huge sprawling estates.
Now they do. Which makes it an era of the New Aristocrats. A combination of a new class with an old one.
Having money seems to increase one’s social status, assuming there are no other barriers.
I sometimes suspect that I am not as conservative as I think I am. Because I believe that the compensation of CEO’s, entertainers and athletes are obscenely skewed.
On the other hand, I am conservative to the extent that I do not think it is government’s role to control their compensation. Nor do I think government should punish them by a confiscatory tax rate.
The situation exists because ordinarily (word?) compensated folks are willing to pay excessive prices for goods, tickets, advertising, and celebrity endorsed merchandise to support that level of compensation. And as stockholders, we allow sham Boards of Directors to virtually steal from us to reward their “pals”, who often sit on their boards and return the favor. (My wife, for one, doesn’t seem to understand my point.) We are all the enablers. But, I try to be a bit selective about where my money goes for this very reason, even if it is impossible to completely opt out.
I think part of the issue is that many people do not understand that *executive management* is a genuine skill set….They tend to think that all you need is someone to think brilliant thoughts, and that the actual *doing* is pretty trivial. This seems like the only explanation for the election of someone with no executive experience whatsoever as the nation’s chief executive.
And increasingly, there are many very-well-off and influential people—lawyers, successful writers, leading academics, certain kinds of finance people—who have little if any personal experience with managing people/organizations and the difficulties involved therein.
One more thought on this: I imagine that academics, when they think of a CEO or other corporate executive, tend to think of the department heads, deans, vice presidents, etc at their own universities…many if not most of whom probably *really are* largely irrelevant to the actual research and teaching going on—and tend to assume that the same is true in the business world.
Richard Johnston makes a very good point: who is perceived to be a boss and who is not. The other part is that the actors and newsreaders are fellow liberals and so they are beyond critique. Libs constantly bring up how much money Rush Limbaugh makes, but Mr Soros’ vast monies, since they are used for Good, are not held against him. Which leaves the athletes. Maybe since they are so popular, across all political lines, it would just make them look like killjoys. But in the end, anything My Tribe does is ok. That’s the basic rule, it seems.
I might countenance some of the arguments that follow my post, except there are too many examples to counter them. Yes, executive level management ability is a fairly rare skill, and deserves to be reasonably rewarded. I have worked for two companies that died almost certainly because of inept upper management that could not transition from the entrepreneurship mode to the sustaining mode. But, as I say, compensation has become excessive, and one could argue dishonest, in many cases.
Stephen Wolf, the airline executive, who specialized in ruining companies. He was CEO of Republic Airlines. Sold to Northwest; Wolf profited. He was CEO of Flying Tigers. Now there is no Flying Tigers; sold to FedEX and he walked away with millions in personal compensation. He was CEO of United Airlines and took them into deep trouble. As CEO of U.S. Airways he got the wonderful idea of a merger with United. After dragging it out for some time and bleeding both companies almost white, it all collapsed. But, he walked away with a $17Mil bonus “for his efforts”. U.S. Airways was left gasping, but Wolf had a nice gift from his board of crony Directors.
One example that I am familiar with. There are countless others without even mentioning the most egregious cases like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The point is that compensation no longer is relative to achievement; and certainly not representative of a company’s health. Too many CEOs have become masters of the shell game, and their Boards willing players; all the while compensation goes up and up, because their talents are so “valuable”.
.
Here’s a possible answer from Dr. Helen on why the “Soak the Rich” meme is so successful.
Reviewing a book titled “Underdogma: How America’s Enemies Use Our Love for the Underdog to Trash American Power” on 1/25, she has this to say:
“From a psychological standpoint, the chapter on “Personal Underdogma” really helped to understand the motives behind so many people’s desire to tax and take money from the so-called “rich” even if it means that their own wealth will suffer. The chapter describes a very important study conducted by a pair of economists at the Universities of Oxford and Warwick in 2001:
And here’s a link to an excellent summary of the research:
http://reason.com/archives/2002/06/19/burn-the-rich
Not all of the research subjects, however, were willing to burn the wealth of the others. It would be interesting to see if there was any correlation between the political leanings of the participants and their willingness — or lack thereof — to burn someone else’s wealth.
Here’s a link that suggests an answer:
http://oikonomeo.blogspot.com/2008/05/economic-power-liberals-vs.html
Too many CEOs have become masters of the shell game, and their Boards willing players; all the while compensation goes up and up, because their talents are so “valuable”.
The government keeps many of them in power solely by suppressing the small business competitors that are big corporatin’s most dangerous rival.
So long as the big corps can play the shell game, as Old says, the government will keep using the monopoly of regulations for the benefit of the status quo.
A few thoughts on this… First, a lot of the people that want to take from the rich seem to think there there is some finite, set amount of money, so that if one guy has a lot, that this somehow had a direct result on someone else having less (hence, the CEO vs. janitor comparison). They never seem to factor in how much the CEO or entrepreneur is actually generating for others, either directly be employing them, or indirectly for others downstream (the stores that sell what he/she manufacturers), This seems in line with the guy who feels that “you don’t own what you earn; it belongs to the people and we’re just letting you keep if for now”.
The other is that unlike CEOs, we in some ways feel like we “own” the celebrities and sports stars by paying for their entertainment. We expect to know intimate details about their lives and have no concerns for their privacy. We feel perfectly comfortable criticizing them and judging all of their performances and personal decisions. Also, we will only put them on a pedestal for so long before reveling in their downfall. We don’t usually get such an opportunity with the industry leaders (except for the really high fliers like Gates, etc.
I wonder if there’s a self-esteem issue going on. Conservatives cheerfully believe that they’re good enough, they’re smart enough and, gosh darn it!, people like them. In other words, they can envision themselves occupying that well-paying chair provided, of course, that they work hard enough. I wonder if liberals, at heart, are all Willy Lohman’s, people who talk big but who never envision themselves ascending to positions of power, wealth and responsibility.
I want those positions to exist because I believe I — or my children — will occupy them one day. Liberals don’t want them to exist because they know that they and their progeny never will.
cerumendoc
Wonderful summary on the commandments. Is it any wonder, the liberals don’t want them anywhere near a public building or courtroom.
Just as being liberal means feeling good about yourself, when in comes to work it is the motive behind the work that counts. No matter how much good your work might do, the fact that the motive is less to do good and more to make money completely discredits the good.
I had a discussion with a liberal friend years ago. I tried to explain how it was in a business’s best interest to produce the best product possible and to treat their employees well, etc., because if they didn’t, they wouldn’t be able to make money or stay in business long. His response was the businesses make money by cheating people – be they customers or employees; that because they were trying to make money they could not be trusted.
So liberals tend to idolize those jobs whose compensation is least tied to the market (non-profits, education, government, community organizer) and hate those that are most tied to results. Remember, it is what motivates you to work. Money as a motivation is bad and greedy. This is spite of survey results that show that liberals happiness is more dependent on the amount they earn that conservatives (sorry, I’m too lazy to find the link).
Danny Lemieux: In conversations, a lot of resentment was directed at corporations, CEOs and their “disgusting and greedy” profits, salaries, benefits and bonuses.
Can’t speak for your in-laws, but there is significant evidence that some corporations gamed the system during the run-up to the financial crisis, especially with regards to the huge shadow market in securities, became aware of the problem, continued to sell securities they knew were problematic, walked off with huge profits, leaving their own companies in shambles, and nearly collapsing the global economic system.
Ymarsakar: The Left, however, instead of feeling contempt for their lack of power, use their instincts to create more victims and sacrifices for their own self-aggrandizement and power ambitions. It’s disgusting.
Gross over-generalization.
David Foster: I think part of the issue is that many people do not understand that *executive management* is a genuine skill set….They tend to think that all you need is someone to think brilliant thoughts, and that the actual *doing* is pretty trivial.
Good point. Running any large organization requires a number of important skills. However, stockholders are often far removed from the workings of the businesses, and because of the skewed incentive structure, these highly-skilled and ambitious executives often put their personal short-term gain ahead of the long-term interests of the corporation.
Kirk Strong: Not all of the research subjects, however, were willing to burn the wealth of the others.
The research was structured as a betting game. It was made known to the participants during the course of the game that some people were being arbitrarily advantaged, that is, given a gift of money. Participants could anonymously choose to burn other people’s dollars by expending pennies of their own money. Those who were advantaged would burn anyone. But those who were not advantaged acted according to fairness, burning only those who were unfairly advantaged. Naïve notions of self-interest do not explain the result.
Zizzo & Oswald, Are People willing to Pay to Reduce Others’ Incomes, University of Warwick, Department of Economics 2001.
TommyC: I tried to explain how it was in a business’s best interest to produce the best product possible and to treat their employees well, etc., because if they didn’t, they wouldn’t be able to make money or stay in business long.
Ayn Rand acolyte, Alan Greenspan: “Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief.”
Zachriel
The more heavily regulated an industry is, the more remote they get from their customers. As the regulations increase, the industry tends to focus on simply obeying the rules – anything permitted under the regulations becomes acceptable. The financial industry, along with utilities, are among the most heavily regulated so as to almost be government run.
One quote from you does not challenge the fundamental point. Nor does it even address the issue I was addressing. This is fairly typical of all the debates I ever have with a liberal – quibble over a minor point while totally evading the issue under discussion. Until you address the point I was making – that liberals tend to denigrate those occupations whose focus is making money and glorify those whose compensation is not closely tied to the actual worth of the ‘product’ produced – then I’ll not waste more time arguing with you.
TommyC: The more heavily regulated an industry is, the more remote they get from their customers.
A regulated industry still has to find and service customers to make money.
TommyC: The financial industry, along with utilities, are among the most heavily regulated so as to almost be government run.
The shadow market in securities, a market measured in many trillions of dollars, was largely outside of regulatory oversight.
TommyC: This is fairly typical of all the debates I ever have with a liberal – quibble over a minor point while totally evading the issue under discussion.
As you made the point, it would seem you thought it was important. And if your argument depends on the point, then it is reasonable to discuss it. Your point again:
TommyC: I tried to explain how it was in a business’s best interest to produce the best product possible and to treat their employees well, etc., because if they didn’t, they wouldn’t be able to make money or stay in business long.
Yes, that’s often the case. But not always the case. And that may explain why some people rail against corporations. During the crisis, some people made a lot of money they didn’t deserve. And other people, who did everything right, who worked and saved to make a better life for their families, were hurt. You can’t undo all those contracts and transactions, but it is important to understand what happened so as to prevent its recurrence.
TommyC: His response was the businesses make money by cheating people – be they customers or employees; that because they were trying to make money they could not be trusted.
Your friend is wrong. Most businesses try very hard to provide a product that people want, care about their customers and employees, and want to contribute something of value to society.
TommyC: Until you address the point I was making – that liberals tend to denigrate those occupations whose focus is making money and glorify those whose compensation is not closely tied to the actual worth of the ‘product’ produced – …
Not all or even most liberals denigrate those occupations whose focus is making money, so your point is moot.
TommyC: then I’ll not waste more time arguing with you.
Feel free to ignore our comments.
Don’t feed the troll, don’t feed the troll. OK I’ll feed the troll.
Zach, Danny has stated (and I agree) that it is his experience that liberals tend to find CEOs and the like ‘disgusting and greedy’. There are plenty of examples of liberal politicians, pundits and entertainers echoing this sentiment.
I offer up an explanation based on my own experience. You quibble over practically everything I said, and yet to what purpose? I made a case that liberals focus on how money is made and consider if the prime motive is making money rather than doing good, then that is a bad thing. And you actually have not disputed this. You’ve quibbled about everything but the actual main point. You’ve even gone so far as to deny the premise simply by asserting it in the face of much contrary evidence (“Not all or even most liberals denigrate those occupations whose focus is making money, so your point is moot”).
And yet, after reading all your stuff, I have no clue what you actually think. Do you really think that liberals don’t denigrate CEOs and the like? If so, I can provide many examples to then contrary. And if you agree that at least some do, then the question is, why? You may have a much better explanation that I do. I simply offered up an explanation based on my own experience. Nothing you have said has changed my mind one iota, yet this is a topic where I would welcome a better explanation. You simply haven’t provided any explanation at all. I truly wonder what your objective is. If it is wasting other people’s time, you are surely succeeding -at least in my case. If it is to change minds, I think you are failing miserably. If you want some genuine, honest discussion, and really want to have a chance at changing some minds, you need to say what you believe and make a positive case for it. Sure, part of making your case may involve poking holes in the other side’s argument. But until you start making a case for your own beliefs, you come off as someone who really doesn’t think for himself. I find it very easy to poke holes in arguments – even in my own arguments. It is very easy to do, but it really is pointless unless you do it in the context of making your own case for something. I can provide snippets disputing every point you made, but all that does is avoid the real subject. I’ll use the very first one as an example:
TommyC: The more heavily regulated an industry is, the more remote they get from their customers.
Zach: A regulated industry still has to find and service customers to make money.
TommyC: I am a captive customer of my gas and electric companies.
Of course, we’d already left the original topic. But you didn’t disprove my point, you simply made a statement that is generally true. And I didn’t disprove your statement either. I provided a counter example, but your statement is still generally true. We could go back and forth forever, but so what? We’ve long since left the original topic and there is no real substance to the discussion. This all goes back to my original point that it is in a business’s best interest to treat their employees well and to produce a good product, if they want to make money. And this is a true statement – it is in their best interest. The fact that there are some instances where it was not the case does dispute the general point – you even affirmed it yourself, subsequently. So why did you quibble over it in the first place?
Where I was a lad, in high school and college, quibbling was a violation of the honor code. There was a reason for this: quibbling was seen to be dancing around the truth, or more specifically, a means of avoiding telling the truth. It seems you use quibbling primarily to avoid real discussion, and probably to award yourself Brownie points.
TommyC:
Thank you for stating so clearly what I’ve felt almost all along. Despite your eloquence and clarity, I doubt you will make any impression. Still, it’s nice to know that I’m not the only one who feels he has been hitting his head against a 13-year-old Asperger syndrome wall.
Charles,
I am not optimistic, but I like Zach. He doesn’t come in here and call people names. He tries to engage. But his means of engaging are really rather bogus. It’s like ‘how many statements can I quibble about”? Every quibble gets a Brownie point.
I used to be a liberal and I used to be a little like Zach. Rather than make a case and defend it, I’d pick holes in the other guy’s case. Then two things happened (over time). I became a conservative, and I realized that I’d never actually persuaded anyone to my point of view.
As I said, I can pick holes in anyone’s argument – even people whose views I totally agree with. But so what? So I try to make a case and some may agree and some may disagree. If someone really wants to honestly engage and debate, then I am happy to do it. Sadly, few liberals want to do that.
I too like Zach and find Them to provide the most worthwhile alternative commentary of all such alternative types of visitors. That Zach has very fixed opinions and won’t change Their mind even when presented with our own brilliant argumentation is not really a criticism to me. On those rare occasions when disagreements arise among commenters here, we don’t tend to alter each others’ opinions either, not one bit!
If only I could get the image out of my head of Zach as a Borg-like collection of groupthink precocious teenagers.
I rarely agree with Zach but I find Them useful in making me examine my own assumptions. Which of my axioms aren’t really axioms at all? It’s useful to examine them from time to time.
Perhaps we should concentrate on this point.
Zachriel: Most businesses try very hard to provide a product that people want, care about their customers and employees, and want to contribute something of value to society.
TommyC: This all goes back to my original point that it is in a business’s best interest to treat their employees well and to produce a good product, if they want to make money.
We are largely in agreement on this, but you ignored the distinction. It is not always in the interest of corporate executives to work for the betterment of their own business, much less that of the shareholders, employees or customers. When this disconnect occurs in huge corporations that control large sectors of the economy, especially the financial markets, it can lead to severe dislocations, as we have seen.
TommyC: So why did you quibble over it in the first place?
Because the distinction is an important one with regards to the recent fiscal calamity, and sheds light on your overgeneralization about liberals. You merely asserted that “liberals tend to denigrate those occupations whose focus is making money.” Large corporations are not held in high regard by most of the public, but attitudes are better for small corporations. This is understandable, as large corporations have often not always been good citizens, and deserve a great deal of responsibility for the current global economic problems. But typically, liberals don’t denigrate people making money or people in business, just powerful interests who control markets and have an inordinate influence over government and the economy. If they didn’t believe in free enterprise, they would be socialists, not liberals.
http://people-press.org/report/606/trust-in-government
Mike Devx: If only I could get the image out of my head of Zach{riel} as a Borg-like collection of groupthink precocious teenagers.
Don’t worry. Assimilation is entirely optional.
Xachriel…”It is not always in the interest of corporate executives to work for the betterment of their own business, much less that of the shareholders”
This is true–it is also true of government officials at all levels. In economics, it is called the agency problem.
Zach’s opinion is backed up by what again?
If you want some genuine, honest discussion, and really want to have a chance at changing some minds, you need to say what you believe and make a positive case for it.
Zach has a problem with making independent judgments by himself. He finds it more comfortable making decisions that are backed by 20 others in a committee. It’s part of the reason for his over reliance on scientists and other such authorities. He says that he has no place to judge and I believe him. Which is why he relies upon others to judge what is true for him. A rather problematic stance in epistemological terms.
Given what Zach said about big corporations, one wonders why Zach is for big government and regulations. Does he believe big corporations have problems that can be solved by even bigger government? If he doesn’t believe this, does he just believe in the Keynesian scam artists that claim so?
TommyC responds to Zachriel: “The more heavily regulated an industry is, the more remote they get from their customers. As the regulations increase, the industry tends to focus on simply obeying the rules – anything permitted under the regulations becomes acceptable. The financial industry, along with utilities, are among the most heavily regulated so as to almost be government run.”
I would add to that and say, it also squeezes out competition and entrepreneurship. Regulatory compliance incurs costs that large companies can absorb (and pass on to their customers) but that small companies cannot. The reason is that the costs of compliance are a relatively much smaller part of overhead costs for large companies than they are for small companies. I propose that this is one of the reasons that Wall Street and so many other large corporation CEOs are reliably Democrat. Such regulations also pose a huge burden to entrepreneurship by raising the costs of entry into a market.
The EPA’s “milk as petroleum” example that I cited in another post is one case: small dairies cannot comply and will be squeezed out of business if this is enforced. Another more immediate example is Obama’s recent issuance of “global warming regulations” in January and giving corruptocratic insider GE a waiver on those rules in February:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/02/obama-issues-global-warming-rules-january-gives-ge-exemption-febr
So, if your “in”, your in. If you’re “out”, you’re out of luck. Market choices get squeezed out as a small tight-knit oligopoly gradually asserts control over the economy. What Liberals don’t realize (and Lefties do) is that this process of government centralization and over-regulation of the economy puts companies in the position of being mendicants to the government and the government in the position of picking favorites and dictating terms (and the price!). This squeezes out competition and leaves us with what David Foster correctly identifies as an “agency problem” (in economic jargon).
Liberals, of course, suffer from the fatal conceit in believing that they can control “government” and compel it to govern in their image by (in Ann Coulter’s immortal words) banning all of which they disapprove and mandating all of which they approve. Sorry, Libs: human nature is human nature! It’s corrupt.
BTW…it’s not as if I am speaking about hypotheticals. I live in Chicagoland.
What I have just described is also known as the “Chicago Way”.
Danny,
Indeed. A big gripe I have with over-regulation is that it keeps the big players in the game and forces the little players out of the game. But even worse, the big players have a big incentive to support that over-regulation, so we have crony capitalism at its worst. The way for a business to get ahead is through political influence rather than building a better mousetrap.
One would think that this sort of collusion between big business and big government would be something liberals and conservatives could find common ground on and both oppose. It may come as a shock to many on the left, but most big corporations are not in favor of a free market. They favor regulations that limit the ability of others to compete with them. The more regulations, the less likely new businesses can enter the field. Oh, certainly there are some regulations that some big business will object to, but for the most part all the active opposition to excessive regulation comes from small business.
Ymarsakar: Zach{riel}’s opinion is backed up by what again?
Generally, by demonstrable facts. On the question of views on occupations that focus on making money, from the Pew Report above, the same proportion (~70%) of Republicans, Democrats and independents say small businesses have a positive effect, while there is strong dissatisfaction with large corporations across the board.
Ymarsakar: Given what Zach said about big corporations, one wonders why Zach{riel} is for big government and regulations.
That doesn’t properly represent our position. Indeed, efficient government with a small footprint have many advantages. But this has to be balanced against the problem of unconstrained markets.
David Foster: This is true–it is also true of government officials at all levels. In economics, it is called the agency problem.
Good point. That’s the danger in any organization, from the smallest to the largest. That’s why accountability in developed societies is distributed at many different levels.
Danny Lemieux: I would add to that and say, it also squeezes out competition and entrepreneurship.
TommyC: But even worse, the big players have a big incentive to support that over-regulation, so we have crony capitalism at its worst.
It belies your point in that you rarely see large corporations pressing for increased regulation. Stability is usually a more pressing concern.
Danny Lemieux: I propose that this is one of the reasons that Wall Street and so many other large corporation CEOs are reliably Democrat.
As Democrats are usually seen as pressing for increased regulation on corporations and increased taxes on the wealthy, corporate CEOs are traditionally Republican, though they often donate to both parties, in order to hedge their bets.
Generally, by demonstrable facts
You’ve demonstrated facts? Since when did that happen.
while there is strong dissatisfaction with large corporations across the board.
That’s not your opinion. That is in fact our opinion. Or the public’s opinion. Which we have already covered. Why are you repeating useless information and claiming it as your own CEO bonus?
But this has to be balanced against the problem of unconstrained markets.
The problem is government controlled markets. You just call it ‘unconstrained markets” because of a personal issue of yours. Has nothing to do with the problem at hand. Again, favoring Keynesian con men schemes is going to do what about “unconstrained markets” again?
You favoring big government to solve the problems created by government, is going to do what again? You, who can’t make a decision for yourself, by yourself, believe people can make their own decisions without government interference since when did that happen again?
It belies your point in that you rarely see large corporations pressing for increased regulation.
Zach’s never heard of Fannie Mae, and thinks he knows what’s going on in the markets. That’s incredibly ridiculous on the face of it.
What I have just described is also known as the “Chicago Way”.
Obama’s trying to make it the American way with all these nationalizations and healthcare take overs that LibProgs favor. Zach’s no exception to that rule.
Zach says, “corporate CEOs are traditionally Republican…”
That’s a popular caricature but, like so many other popular caricatures on the Left (Liberals are generous, Conservatives are greedy), it doesn’t really hold up…for large companies, at least.
Some names that come top-of-mind are: Bloomberg; Buffet; Gates; Jobs; Immelt (GE); Corzine (Goldman Sachs); Blankfein (Goldman Sachs), Bezos (Amazon); Cayne (Bear Stearns), Dimon (JP Morgan)…
Ymarsakar and Danny, thanks for taking up the torch. To be honest, I’m giving up on Zach, though I’ll still read his posts. He still has not addressed the issue of the original post by stating his own opinions and making his case. I’ve repeated the basic issue multiple times and asked for a response. All I’ve gotten is quibbling. This is a standard approach for people who can’t make a sound argument themselves – change the subject by cherry-picking individual items to quibble over, but avoid the core issue at all costs.
I never thought I’d have a need to use the term quibble so much, but here it is entirely appropriate.
I just posted at the Equality of Outcome vs. Equality of Opportunity thread in a way which dovetails with the point about liberals valuing motivations differently, and devaluing folks who are just in it for the money. Thrust being is I left an occupation where the money is good for one where it isn’t, but the physic payoffs are worth it to me. That’s a choice I made for myself, but I would not criticize anyone else merely because their priorities may be different from mine, nor because they find the work I found objectionable to be satisfying.
TommyC’s comments about quibbling bring to mind a snippet from Peter Cook’s “Beyond the Fringe,” a British satirical revue from the early 60s. In one segment, some agents are interviewing actors for the role of Tarzan (excerpt from Wiki):
Cook: Mr Spiggott – you are, I believe, auditioning for the part of Tarzan.
Moore: Right.
Cook: Now Mr Spiggott, I couldn’t help noticing – almost at once – that you are a one-legged person.
Moore: You noticed that?
Cook: I noticed that, Mr Spiggott. When you have been in the business as long as I have, you come to notice these little things almost instinctively.
The agent goes on to point out that Tarzan is “a role which traditionally involves the use of a two-legged actor” and that it would be unusual for the part to be taken by a “unidexter”, but Spiggott’s enthusiasm is undimmed. Cook keeps a straight face as he explains exactly why Spiggott is unsuitable for the role.
Cook: Need I say with over much emphasis that it is in the leg division that you are deficient.
Moore: The leg division?
Cook: Yes, the leg division, Mr Spiggott. You are deficient in it to the tune of one. Your right leg, I like. I like your right leg. A lovely leg for the role. That’s what I said when I saw you come in. I said, “A lovely leg for the role”. I’ve got nothing against your right leg. The trouble is – neither have you.
In place of Cook’s observation about the unlikelihood of the role being undertaken by a “unidexter,” in this room’s case I would substitute TommyC’s “quibbler.”
TommyC: I’ve repeated the basic issue multiple times and asked for a response.
TommyC: This all goes back to my original point that it is in a business’s best interest to treat their employees well and to produce a good product, if they want to make money.
We are largely in agreement on this, but you ignored the distinction… Again. Perhaps if you engaged the point, you might find that the discussion can progress. Note David Foster addressed this issue, and brought up the problem of a detached government bureaucracy.
Zachriel: while there is strong dissatisfaction with large corporations across the board.
Ymarsakar: That’s not your opinion. That is in fact our opinion. Or the public’s opinion.
The question concerned attitudes of various groups of Americans, i.e. public opinion; in this case, that Democrats have similarly postive views of small businesses as to Republicans and independents.
Zachriel: corporate CEOs are traditionally Republican…
Danny Lemieux: That’s a popular caricature but …
Survey of 258 C-level executives, which party would you affiliate yourself in the upcoming presidential election?
Democratic 13%
Independent 33%
Republican 54%
Chief Executive Magazine, 2008
Richard,
You open up an interesting topic. Every job has trade-offs. There are many factors to consider besides the pay. What is the work and how much do you like doing it? What are the working conditions? What is the benefit package? And even is this job good for society? And there are other possible personal moral factors as well. I’ve known people who would never work for a defense contractor as well as some that would never work for any organization that is not religious.
Most liberals I know look with a certain amount of scorn on people who are motivated primarily by pay, rather than doing good. I’m not saying liberals all have ‘do-good’ jobs. It is just that then tend to admire those who have such jobs over those that have high paying jobs. Actually, I think most of us admire people who sacrifice material well- being for something they consider more important. It is just that liberals and conservatives have very different ideas about what constitutes things worth sacrificing pay over. Liberals might admire community organizers, while I might admire a family where the wife stays home with the kids even though she could earn good pay herself. And also I think that there is some confusion over ascribing motives to people who happen to be paid a lot.
What was Sam Walton’s motivation for founding and building Wal-Mart? Was it to get rich? Was it to make everyday items more affordable to the average Joe? Probably a bit of both, but none of us can say for sure. But a lot of very successful (and rich) people are motivated by a vision of something they wish to accomplish and they focus like a laser on it and do just that. What we end up with is some people getting rich, but also doing a lot of good. The good may have been their motivation, or maybe it was to get rich. But the fact is that both occurred.
Adam Smith would say that, crooks and the like aside, pretty much every job does ‘good’ whether or not the job-holder intends it or not. Take your garbage man. It is not a pleasant job and that is why it pays reasonably well since it is pretty unskilled. But it is an important job – a ‘good’ job if you will – and we should be grateful to the people that do it. There are some jobs that we might look at pretty unfavorably, but when we dig down deep, pretty much all jobs are ‘good’. I admire anyone in any job who takes their work seriously and works hard at it. Mob and other crime related jobs excluded.
The figure I have heard most often in recent years has had eighty per cent of corporate CEO’s voting and donating Democrat, twenty per cent Republican and other. (e.g. Liberals get so uncomfortable when they run up against the fact that the head of Whole Foods is Libertarian.) The voting is hard to track directly, although they live in certain suburbs in Connecticut and around LA, which are a very deep shade of blue. However, the donations certainly are tracked, and they go Democrat, quite reliably. Jacobs calls it, as I believe Plato did, “a monstrous hybrid.” The Guardian Party have traditionally been the Democrats. The Commercial Party were Republicans. Slavery is Guardian, (coercive, violent)markets and business are, obviously, Commercial, and therefore incompatible with slavery, so the Commercials formed a party to oppose it. None of this was new when Ms Jacobs was writing Systems, in 1991. Yeah, the high protective tariff was supported by Republicans, and being a typical Southerner, I still whine about it. (But, hey! I’m a still a Republican Southerner
!) Note another nasty hybrid: Northern corporations that bought and sold cotton and other southern agricultural products, and operated slave ships. Fairly solid American businesses buy petroleum from totally execrable Mid East monarchies, and other abominable governments. Saddam Hussein assured April Glasbie that the US would be able to buy all the Kuwaiti petroleum that we wanted, until Margaret Thatcher ‘phoned Bush I to say “This is no time to go wobbly, George.”
The corruption runs so deep that it has generated its own folklore, like the legend of the “hundred-mile-a-gallon carb,” which has been around since I was in high school, class of ’69. I am suspicious of the physics of that device, but we can all see that small competitors in the automobile industry, who are the innovators, are squeezed out of the market, any time that they try to enter. It’s certainly true that mileage has more than doubled since then, and that the improvements came much more slowly than the market demanded.
Anyhow, the earlier thread wondered at and pondered the oddity of the grown kids who wanted to “do something meaningful, something important.” that did not involved making money. Of course they do. They have been indoctrinated to believe that commerce is ignoble. Noble people do not engage in ‘trade.’ There are no Anglo Saxon words that they blush to say, but they sure do grimace when they are forced to say “profit.”
Zach, “C” level only refers to the word “chief”.
Your referred data does not say what size or type of corporations were surveyed or how representative the survey data set was of corporations nationwide (surveys are easily skewed).
The point is, there are many CEOs of leading corporations that are confirmed Democrats. The smart CEOs stay unaffiliated.
I would add that there are many CEOs fo leading corporations that absolutely love government regulations:
1) large food companies have no trouble with nutritional labeling regulations because it gives them the excuse to repackage and resell products at a higher price.
2) ADM has no trouble with environmental regulations that mandate increased use of ethanol.
3) Health Insurance companies had no trouble with ObamaCare legislation when they thought it would mean expanding their market. Of course, when they discovered that they would eventually be phased out of existence…ooops!
4) GE has no trouble with government regulation and promotion of “green” technologies, as long as it has the inside track.
…etc.
Danny Lemieux: Your referred data does not say what size or type of corporations were surveyed or how representative the survey data set was of corporations nationwide (surveys are easily skewed).
In reply, you provide anecdotal evidence.
Survey of 751 CEOs, 80% supported McCain.
Chief Executive Magazine, August 2008
Even if the methodology was somewhat skewed, with the number of CEOs surveyed, and considering national polling put Obama and McCain roughly even, the differential is too significant to ignore.
No, Zach. It was a list of top-of-mind names of very prominent CEOs that describe themselves as Democrats.
There were many Democrats who voted for McCain because Obama was so obviously anti-business (a socialist, despite your protestations to the contrary…and I am being kind in my description of Obama).
Democrat CEO vote for Republicans some times and Republican CEOs vote for Democrats some time.
Even if the methodology was somewhat skewed, with the number of CEOs surveyed, and considering national polling put Obama and McCain roughly even, the differential is too significant to ignore.
The fact that you can’t even tell propaganda from factual data, is a problem we can’t help you with.
Democrat CEO vote for Republicans some times and Republican CEOs vote for Democrats some time.
Since they are CEOs, Danny, they are attracted to actual experience and leadership. They may vote for certain Congressmen for laws, but the President doesn’t make law. CEOs are known as ambitious and take charge kind of people. Internally driven and motivated. They tend to be attracted to people who are also internally motivated.
Obama is a lazy person. Even CEOs would find it hard to like him, even if they were told to do so or else.
Btw, why is it that Zach evades the point Adams made about contributions and starts talking about who voted for whom?
Is his world constructed such that a person can only vote for who he contributes to?
This is a standard approach for people who can’t make a sound argument themselves
LibProgs and their Leftist allies NEED a Hive mind for their Utopia. They don’t really feel comfortable making decisions for themselves, by themselves. It’s like an instinctual drive ; )
Oh, which ice cream do we pick? Well, which one is popular? Is my favorite movie star promoting this ice cream?
All kinds of junk thoughts go through the Leftist cannon fodder. You don’t even want to know how much.
Ymarsakar: Btw, why is it that Zach evades the point Adams made about contributions and starts talking about who voted for whom?
Michael Adams: The figure I have heard most often in recent years has had eighty per cent of corporate CEO’s voting and donating Democrat, twenty per cent Republican and other.
Please note that Michael Adams’ comment concerned voting and donations. More specifically, the conversation started with this qualitative exchange.
Danny Lemieux: I propose that this is one of the reasons that Wall Street and so many other large corporation CEOs are reliably Democrat.
Zachriel: As Democrats are usually seen as pressing for increased regulation on corporations and increased taxes on the wealthy, corporate CEOs are traditionally Republican, though they often donate to both parties, in order to hedge their bets.
Typically, business leans Republican, labor leans Democratic. Minorities and women lean Democratic, while men lean Republican. These are just general trends, though, and many people will change their political loyalties depending on the prevalent issues and the individual candidates.
We have already provided quantitative support for chief executives leaning Republican. Here is information related to how corporations tend to hedge their bets in their campaign contributions, or support candidates based on narrow criteria, such as committee assignments.
The 10 Biggest Corporate Campaign Contributors in U.S. Politics
http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/company-news/the-10-biggest-corporate-campaign-contributors-in-u-s-politics/19652265/
CEO/Chief Executive Officers – Political Campaign Contributions
http://www.campaignmoney.com/ceo.asp
Please note that Michael Adams’ comment concerned voting and donations. More specifically, the conversation started with this qualitative exchange.
So you focus on the voting because you have conceded the donation issue. And this matters because?
Ymarsakar: So you focus on the voting because you have conceded the donation issue.
The latest comment includes a previous quote addressing the issue of donation, “corporate CEOs are traditionally Republican, though they often donate to both parties, in order to hedge their bets“, while providing quantitative support. Not sure what else we can do for you.
Perhaps CEOs are more inclined, personally, to vote GOP. But it is in the best interest of most large corporations to elect Democrats. Over the last several decades, I do believe that Corporate donations have leaned Democratic in spite of the general perception that the GOP is the ‘party of big business’.
I have a simple rule I use to determine whether the media, overall, is doing it’s job. If public opinion is totally at odds with the facts, then the media is not doing a good job. I think this is the case with political contributions. I think the public perception is that the GOP gets the big donors and the corporate money. Does the media deliberately promote this or do they simply not clear up the misconception?
Not sure what else we can do for you.
You have yet to answer what this demonstrates, explains, or refudiates (proves).
Explain, in your own words, why CEOs voting Democrat or Republican has anything to do with the media portraying CEOs as donating GOP when the donations are skewed towards Democrats.
Trying to prove the ocean is wet by holding up a wet dishtowel is doing no good for your position, Zach.
Ymarsakar: You have yet to answer what this demonstrates, explains, or refudiates (proves).
We responded to this statement.
Michael Adams: The figure I have heard most often in recent years has had eighty per cent of corporate CEO’s voting and donating Democrat, twenty per cent Republican and other.
We showed why the statement was incorrect on both voting (skews Republican) and donations (hedged and industry specific). Note it has nothing to do with media perception.
Ymarsakar: Explain, in your own words, why CEOs voting Democrat or Republican has anything to do with the media portraying CEOs as donating GOP when the donations are skewed towards Democrats.
This is a separate and loaded question. You might want to substantiate the presupposition that the media is incorrectly presenting the facts.