That old canard.

[meus_ovatio]

A random article became interesting because of the recent Wisconsin fight over public-sector compensation. UnitedHealth CEO makes 48.8 million.

This article sparks many interesting questions. They are:

Comments

[mrbogey]

The biggest cognitive dissonance in American politics is how CEO's earn too much but we still need to bail them out.

Let them fail if their board is that reckless with money.

I feel like the dog that is getting his nose rubbed in a mess he not only didn't create but barked loudly about when it was being created.

[anosognosia]

I too find it a bit odd that letting them fail was evil capitalism back when the bailout was being discussed, and now that it's said and done, the bailout is evil capitalism.

The oddest thing about it is that both sides of the popular debate seem to have happily switched sides without even nicking a seam.

It's gorgeous in a horrifying way.

[mrbogey]

I haven't switched. I've been right here all along.

[anosognosia]

Hey, credit given man. Free game.

[meus_ovatio]

How does Scott Walker's logic about public sector employees being compensated based on poorly designed contracts created by unions and essentially rubber stamped by previous governments apply to executive compensation?
It was about the political reactions to social, business and political developments from a given section of the population. You see, this is interesting because reactions to business, political and social developments are couched in a Total Logic, and not simply a provincial logic depending upon the sector being scrutinized.

So, for instance, when people object to public-sector pay "because it isn't fair", they're doing so from a moral standpoint. To then turn around and say that this moral standpoint doesn't apply to executive compensation is arbitrary, capricious and simply puts the lie to the earlier claims about fundamental fairness and morality.

But we've all been over this before: some people believe that moral logic applies to government, but not to markets.

[meus_ovatio]

Not at all. The issue isn't about the pay not being fair, but how they got the pay. You've fundamentally misunderstood the argument.
No, I've understood the argument just fine. Since you want to arbitrarily define "the argument" as to whatever you define it to be, I'm not interested in responding. I'm not responding to you. I'm responding to the actual words by the actual people involved in the actual protests, counter-protests, TV ads and political flyers. Whatever you suppose the argument is, is irrelevant.

[gunslnger]

the level of vitriolic defense in service of executive compensation is puzzling.

Can you give an example(s) that shows this high level you speak of?

The rank-and-file of the GOP and Tea Party will go to the mat in defense of corporate executives. They do it every time.

Evidence? (Although I'm more concerned about the Tea Party accusation than the GOP, as I can accept that the GOP does this.)

And indeed, if the logic of Scott Walker is to be believed, severe cuts should be made to executive compensation. It isn't fair that other people make more money.

I would say that this seems to show that either you missed what Scott Walker's logic actually was, or you're making an illogical extrapolation from it.

As if public sector employees didn't pay taxes or something.

They essentially don't, as the money just cycles around between them and the government. Just like you can cancel identical terms on either side of the equation in math. Sure, you can leave them there to make it look more complicated, but it does simplify down.

If

[meus_ovatio]

Can you give an example(s) that shows this high level you speak of?
Sure, if you just read the comments on the article, you'll see all kinds of forum-regulars and proud Tea Party members calling everyone else a bunch of communists and jealous kids. Or, you can refer to the extensive television and radio coverage of executive compensation over the paying of executive bonuses in 2008 and 2009 with government bailout money, and how every Tea Party outlet defended it to the hilt.

I would say that this seems to show that either you missed what Scott Walker's logic actually was, or you're making an illogical extrapolation from it.
Oh, well if you're just saying, I guess I'm not too concerned.

They essentially don't, as the money just cycles around between them and the government.
They essentially do, since the taxation covers a broad range of governance, ie: the difference between State and Federal taxation.

Just like you can cancel identical terms on either side of the equation in math. Sure, you can leave them there to make it look

[gunslnger]

Sure, if you just read the comments on the article, you'll see all kinds

Hmm, I didn't see any comments on the article. Although, when I've looked at news articles in the past, they've been hate-filled vitriol from all sides on any topic, so I don't see much value in using that as a basis for anything.

how every Tea Party outlet defended it to the hilt.

I never saw any such thing at the time. The only reporting on the Tea Party I saw was the media continually calling them racists. And all the Tea Party newsletters I got have been against giving government money to corporations.

I guess I'm not too concerned.

Obviously.

And what do you think we're talking about here?

You seem to be talking about how much a company pays its executives. I'd prefer to complain about companies getting government money, regardless of what they do with it.

[meus_ovatio]

Oh, well I'm not surprised you didn't see things. I guess that means they don't exist.

You seem to be talking about how much a company pays its executives.
Oh, wow, if you think that, I guess you didn't even bother to read.

I'd prefer to complain about companies getting government money, regardless of what they do with it.
Then by all means, talk about that. Make posts even. Hell, make a hundred posts. I welcome the idea.

[heavens_steed]

If you are so pissed about teacher's unions, why aren't you proudly explaining just how much more sick you are of paying for corporate failure?As a conservative sympathetic with Tea Party principles, I am against corporate welfare. Anyone who supports smaller government and free market principles should be opposed to any unjustified government welfare, whether it be for corporations or for individuals. However, corporate welfare is not the primary source of government spending and deficits. Entitlement and pension programs are

[meus_ovatio]

You mean the taxpayer money that was taken by force and funneled into executive bonus compensation was voluntary?

The only problem is that when the public sector has nothing left to feed on, it's going to starve and die.
Cool story bro, too bad it has nothing to do with reality. The public and private sectors both contribute and detract from economic performance. This simple narrative is an exercise in fairy-tale storytelling that has no basis in the reality of modern society.

[farchivist]

I am against corporate welfare.

Why do you hate business?

If you don't like to buy from or work with a particular corporation, you can go to another one

You probably also believe that a monopoly does not develop without government help or that if one does, it's because everyone is happy with the product. Like Microsoft Windows.

It's the wealthier and more productive citizens who are getting screwed and I defend them.

1) I'm not getting screwed, thank you.
2) I don't need (or want) your defense.

Secondly, when the rich and the primary movers of the private sector are punished, it means the rest of us will suffer too. There will be less prosperity and less job opportunity. When the rich get poorer, the poor get poorer too. That is to say, directly hurting the rich will indirectly hurt people like me.

Trust me, if I get punished you won't suffer at all. Trickle down is a lie. I'll still be spending the same amount whether I'm punished or not.

Lower the tax rates on the wealthy while simplifying the tax code to either a flat tax

[farchivist]

But actually, don't take my word for it.

[devil_ad_vocate]

Yeah, I take comfort in UnitedHealthcare's CEO raking in millions - every year when my wife hits the "gap" in her UnitedHealthcare policy, and we pay full price from September through December for her medications, while still paying the monthly premiums.