I concur this is a sacrosanct but I disagree with your characterization of it. It is not true “both are happy with” the arrangement and undoubtedly there are some situations which one side, out of necessity, agrees to an arrangement they do not find palatable. It is plausible, the other side would argue, these arrangements produce unfair, inequitable, and unjust results (i.e. child labor in the 1800s).
Glad to see you’re endorsing gay marriage. But this thread is about corporate finances and unless it’s a very small corporation, I’ll assume more than two people are involved.
And almost everyone will agree. Where the difference comes in is what duress involves. To define the majority of employment relationships as absent duress is to stack the deck more than a little.
So if they just decided to vandalize his car that would be OK?
The threshold for actionable externalities should be lower than conspiracy to commit murder, thanks.
I almost never hear anyone say that, it’s a complete strawman.
What the government *can *do is make capitalism work better by regulating certain practices. Doing that is not anti-capitalist unless you think companies like Microsoft, HP, are Dell are not good examples of capitalism. The govt stepped in and made IBM unbundle it’s HW and SW which led to Microsoft being able to sell DOS and Windows to PC-clone makers. This is just one of many examples of where the govt improves the conditions for capitalism by breaking up monopolies, creating expensive infrastructure, developing standards, and subsidizing basic research. The internet and Google grew out of DARPA research grants. Some of our biggest industries are thriving because of govt activities, not despite them.
Well, I started out guessing you were some kind of believer in process, then was kind of undercut by your actual post. So, bad guess.
Have you seen my jaw? It bounced when it hit the floor, it might be by your feet.
Do you have any idea what the word capitalism actually means?
Yes, I do. Do you?
Capitalism, historically, is, off the top of my head:
- The business of investing in ventures managed by others in order to share in their profits–especially when as a major aspect of the economy.
- The dominance of capitalists–that is, investors in business ventures–over landholders, tribal and religious elders, or other traditional leaders, in the spheres of business and government.
What part of that do you think we have lacked?
Note that the USA is very proudly a capitalist country, and was the violet pole of the spectrum to Moscow’s red pole in the Cold War.
If you’re using your own definition, it’s going to cause confusion.
That’s certainly a possibility. I don’t like the idea of cozy BoDs, but is there any evidence that this is something new or something that is significantly more prevalent than it was 40 or 50 years ago?
how is the above possible when company presidents could get fired in a day?
And when one of those two people really doesn’t have a choice in the matter?
Look, when someone who has a college degree takes a shitty job flipping burgers, it’s not because they want it. It’s because they effectively have the option to either take the job or get kicked out on the street and starve. Automatically assuming that all contracts in the financial world are made without duress and with consent is ridiculously naive and misses a lot of the big picture. I mean, of course, not all contracts are like this. There are a lot of perfectly fine contracts. But there’s a big difference between a contract between equals, and a contract between two people where one is holding all the cards.
“Society” does not reward people; individuals and companies reward people for their services to individuals and companies.
And you are begging the question with your use of the term “scam”. Negotiation is a work skill like most other work skill, and work skills are how money is earned.
The market is the most efficient way to determine what value is being added, and what it is worth. “Observation” by a bunch of twenty-somethings beating drums and complaining about their student loans is much less reliable as an indicator.
I don’t dismiss it; I recognize that it is not generally the case that a Washington bureaucrat can manage things better than the officers of a company. I also recognize envy when I see it. As mentioned, the fact that someone earns more than me does not constitute proof that I have been wronged.
I don’t know how clean the split is, but it exists nonetheless.
But the short answer is Yes. That government is best that governs least. And for government, whatever is not mandatory is forbidden.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t know about John Mace, but you have the “Liberals” argument wrong.
The main problem in the last 30 years is NOT ONLY that the pay for CEOs has risen dramatically compared to the normal worker. It’s that it has risen WHILE everybody else’s pay has SUNK and jobs lost.
The annual raise for wages of all except the top positions is lower than inflation, meaning that over 30 years, we’ve gone from “one income feeds a family with a bit to lay aside” to “two adults earning full wage can just barely scrape by without any reserves”.
And connected to that is the other reason: that CEOs got high pays for “doing good work” plus stock options to reward for good times, but didn’t accept the other side of the coin - accepting blame when things go wrong. Instead, the stock options lead to CEOs not giving a shit if the company crash and burns (destroying thousands of jobs for normal workers), because they sold out their stocks at the apex and then leave. Or the bankers who couldn’t understand why they shouldn’t get their boni during the worst crash in recent time, when the govt. had to step and rescue the banks from falling.
If CEOs bore the full responsibility for the wellfare of the company and showed an actual interest in the prolonged well-being of the company, instead of just sucking it dry and looking at quarterly stock reports; and if the 1% hadn’t gotten shameless rich by stealing from the middle-class - then Liberals wouldn’t have a problem with it.
Compare the 60s and 70s: the Rich got richer, but so did the middle Class.
Now only the rich get richer, everybody else looses. That’s not necessary.
A few years back, someone posted a thread that posited the hypothetical shipwreck of some Joe Schlub and some hot celebrity - think Kristen Stewart or whoever was Kristen Stewart-ish six or seven years ago. The hot female had no survival skills, and Joe Schlub refused to catch fish to feed her unless she slept with him. Was this rape, asked the thread.
So let me ask that quesiton in this thread, in a bit broader context. Is it coercion to refuse to feed someone else, if you’re both stranded on an island through no fault of either of you, and only one of you knows how to cacth food?
Is it coercion for Kristen to demand Joe work twice as hard to catch enough fish to feed them both? Is iy coercion for Joe to demand Kristen put out in return for fish?
Where, if anywhere, is the duress in the situation above?
You get one point for coining the term “boni” as the plural of bonus! 
I agree that there are CEOs out there who seem to win no matter what the company does. What percent of all CEOs does that represent? We only read about the ones with the golden parachutes when things go wrong, so I suspect our perception is biased by anecdotes instead of being informed by data.
As someone who as worked in Silicon Valley for over 30 years, I can assure you that most CEOs I’ve met here are like that. But again, that’s jus an anecdote.
The sexual question has been written on in particular by Schulhofer in Unwanted Sex: The Culture of Intimidation and the Failure of Law. Off the top of my head he comes down that coercion occurs when a person is denied something they would otherwise have a right to.
But that’s obviously not the main question here.
If a person faces a choice between sex and survival, then they are under duress. Such duress may not be illegal coercion, and may not void a contract. But it is still duress. Without going on too much of a tangent, though, I’d expect a contract exchanging sex for services to either be considered prostitution, or to run into serious enforceability problems on the grounds of being unconscionable/against public policy.
In the broader employment sphere, I think the important thing is to remember that one side of the relationship can meaningfully be under duress without the other party placing him or her under that duress, or having any moral obligation to change his or her behavior.
Let’s assume you are correct. What, exactly, can we deduce in terms of the market and employment?
Let’s suppose Person X has a wife, two kids, a car payment, rent, utilities, etcetera. Person X has a graduate degree in Sociology, however, he cannot find employment offering a wage commensurate with his level of education. Person X has bills to pay and mouths to feed, and consequently, waiting for a job opportunity to develop which will offer pay more aligned with his level of education is not practical or an option, unless eviction, repossession of the car, and struggling to find food is a choice. So, Person X has to take two jobs, one at Burger King, and the other at Abercrombie and Fitch, both of which pay minimum wage.
We can assume the presence of coercion or duress by life’s circumstances necessitating Person X take a job at Burger King and A and F. Yet, this doesn’t necessarily mean the individual is underpaid for his labor performed at Burger King or A and F, or the arrangement is unfair or unjust. If you think otherwise, I’d like to know how exactly you reach such a conclusion?
I think he was going for “We don’t have a free market in America.” Not, “We don’t have capitalism in America.”
This is a very valid and very important question for the debate at hand. That said, there is still no way you can claim that any contract between those two was signed willingly and freely in the way that, say, a contract between equals would be signed. And that’s kind of the point here.