tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post1411608883028509826..comments2024-03-28T06:49:24.930-04:00Comments on International Political Economy at the University of North Carolina: Salam on the US EconomyThomas Oatleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14092437150746625670noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post-85699287725173114652011-07-10T00:38:58.843-04:002011-07-10T00:38:58.843-04:00The reason why it's tough for me to get animat...The reason why it's tough for me to get animated about it is that it isn't super-clear who deserves more if the CEOs deserve less. Shareholders? They're the ones that set executive pay packages. Employees? Maybe, but it isn't self-evidently true that most employees provide the sort of value that merits greater compensation. It isn't self-evidently true that CEOs in the 1960s weren't *under*paid, or that there have been fundamental shifts in the economy that lead to more superstar-like compensation tendencies.<br /><br />The average employee may not do as well relative to her CEO as the average employee in the 1960s, but the average employee today does much better than the average employee 50 years ago. <br /><br />Moreover, who gets to make these decisions? If a Texas dairy company wants to pay their CEO too much, who am I to say they shouldn't be allowed to? I can agree that it's absurd, but I think a whole lot of things are absurd. And quite often, absurd things do not persist, especially in competitive markets. So that's where I'd rather focus my attention.Kindred Winecoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14330671232391851377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post-51470349555682470382011-07-09T23:35:31.003-04:002011-07-09T23:35:31.003-04:00KW -
Well, I support less oligopoly and a more pro...KW -<br />Well, I support less oligopoly and a more progressive tax code also, but I can easily get animated about execs earning 400 X what the average worker in their companies makes as opposed to 30 X (or something like that) in the 60s and most of the 70s. (The W.Post had a longish piece on this several weeks ago. Focused on a Texas-based dairy bottling co., I think it was, whose CEO lives in an enormous Dallas mansion, spends time and owns property in that place in Wyoming where the v. rich congregate (I'm drawing a blank on the name) and belongs to multiple golf clubs etc etc.) To say that we need a class of grossly overpaid execs to support a progressive tax system does not cut it w me. I'm enough of a realist to realize that in the system we have execs are going to be well paid regardless, but the current levels of compensation are, for the most part, absurd.LFChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551197682770555147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post-35303345249693635172011-07-09T17:32:00.408-04:002011-07-09T17:32:00.408-04:00LFC -
I can't get too animated about that. To...LFC -<br /><br />I can't get too animated about that. To the extent that it's a problem it's a symptom, not the disease itself. If we remove rents and make industries more competitive, a lot of that will go away. If exec compensation is inefficient (I'm sure that's true), then increased competition will force greater efficiency. I'd rather target the source.<br /><br />Plus, I support a more progressive tax code. That relies on a class of rich people to pick up the majority of the tab.<br /><br />I certainly do not support a legal prohibition on compensation.Kindred Winecoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14330671232391851377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post-6944170998750261392011-07-09T17:14:53.211-04:002011-07-09T17:14:53.211-04:00You don't say anything about the issue of exec...You don't say anything about the issue of executive compensation (and a glance at Salam indicates he doesn't either). How can current levels of exec. pay be considered anything other than grossly inefficient (not to mention normatively undesirable)?LFChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551197682770555147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post-59329000119689674772011-07-08T20:49:36.649-04:002011-07-08T20:49:36.649-04:00I agree that no tax hikes, better tax policy, and ...I agree that no tax hikes, better tax policy, and better regulations are the ideal set of policies for sustainable growth long-term. However, if we can't get these things and if tax hikes and public spending on the unemployed are possible, that would be my second choice. We can't have 9.2% unemployment for too long. That might be socially unstable now and would wreck productivity in the long term, in the sense that many people wouldn't have the skills or might be psychologically damaged to do any meaningful work in 5 or so years from now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com