# This is why the 1% should be made into catfood **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 22, 2011, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-the-1-should-be-made-into-catfood/603781 "2011-11-22T19:05:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2011, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-the-1-should-be-made-into-catfood/603781/121 "2011-11-26T02:36:33Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Can you quantify the high turnover rate problem? Probably not. It just seems to me that formerly great cos like Ml suddenly get komansky, Steffens, Gorman oneil, Thain, lewis et al within a few years of each other, and each brings in a team and each team parachutes out with them, and then ten years later 90% of a great company has gone. I could give several other such examples. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2011, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-the-1-should-be-made-into-catfood/603781/122 "2011-11-26T02:45:12Z")
OK. This isn’t GD, so I won’t press the issue. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2011, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-the-1-should-be-made-into-catfood/603781/123 "2011-11-26T03:27:16Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > We need to be able to attract “top talent” to work for regulatory bodies. The only way to do this is to make the incentives of working as a regulator comparable with managing a hedge fund. So somehow we pass on the cost of regulation directly to companies in proportion to how much they pay executives. If a hedge fund wants a management team worth a few hundred million, then the company itself needs to pay some share of a regulation team worth a few hundred million. This hedge fund wouldn’t have to pay the entire regulation bill; it could be binned with other top-flight firms who would collectively pay for enough people to keep them honest. The cash would keep smart people working for the government because they would not be able to do any better in the private sector. Businesses that compromise on executive pay (and ability to evade regulation) would save on funding the costs of regulation. We’d eventually reach a nice equilibrium distribution of talent between government and the private sector, and it would have the net effect of reducing executive pay without having to tamper with the details of compensation. I’m not sure the incentives of this scheme are going to work quite the way you think. Sure, you’re paying the regulators a large salary to attract talented people, but where’s the incentive to do the job well? It might even be the reverse. Their salaries are tied to those of the executives of the companies they investigate. If they find one of those companies in violation, and prosecute, the scandal could cause the company to fire its CEO. If that happens to enough companies, the myth of the megabucks-worthy CEO starts to unravel. As executive salaries decline, so do those of the regulators. By working effectively, the regulators are in danger of driving their own salaries downwards. If the current climate of CEOs making $100 million is a problem, then having a group of people in the government also making $100 million is not a solution. I think you’d wind up with the same old-boys-club we have now, just with twice as many members to watch each other’s backs. ---
**Author:** ![Nancarrow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c37758/32.png) [@Nancarrow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nancarrow)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2011, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-the-1-should-be-made-into-catfood/603781/124 "2011-11-26T04:02:47Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > You make good points. I’m reading this thread in parallel with the 47-page #OccupyWallStreet one. It’s very confusing, it’s got the same people in it, but in that one Spock’s got a goatee and Uhura is showing more skin. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2011, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-the-1-should-be-made-into-catfood/603781/125 "2011-11-26T12:53:38Z")
> [@Nancarrow](#): > > I’m reading this thread in parallel with the 47-page #OccupyWallStreet one. It’s very confusing, it’s got the same people in it, but in that one Spock’s got a goatee and Uhura is showing more skin. I’m Kirk, right? ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2011, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-the-1-should-be-made-into-catfood/603781/126 "2011-11-26T13:02:37Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > I’m not sure the incentives of this scheme are going to work quite the way you think. Sure, you’re paying the regulators a large salary to attract talented people, but where’s the incentive to do the job well? It might even be the reverse. Their salaries are tied to those of the executives of the companies they investigate. If they find one of those companies in violation, and prosecute, the scandal could cause the company to fire its CEO. If that happens to enough companies, the myth of the megabucks-worthy CEO starts to unravel. As executive salaries decline, so do those of the regulators. By working effectively, the regulators are in danger of driving their own salaries downwards. I don’t think any of this follows. If a company manages to fire its CEO, then there is no reason to believe that a company wouldn’t replace him at roughly the same cost. There is no net effect to the regulatory scheme. No firm has market power, either. All are price-takers. General salary decline is fine. People should make their marginal product. The point is, salary decline needs to be across the board, so that there would be no benefit to leaving the government to go back into the private sector because decline is happening simultaneously there, too. You also assume that any collusion to maintain salaries would occur on the regulatory side. But it is not clear why this would be so. CEOs could just as easily collude not to be corrupt if they want to maintain their high salaries. This is fine, too. But in either case, collusion is very difficult to enforce as numbers of players grow larger and their individual interests diverge. > [@](#): > > If the current climate of CEOs making $100 million is a problem, then having a group of people in the government also making $100 million is not a solution. I think you’d wind up with the same old-boys-club we have now, just with twice as many members to watch each other’s backs. That’s the whole point. Under this scheme, a CEO who makes $100 million costs more than his ticket price _and_ means that the government is going to come down harder and smarter on the firm. This effectively raises the costs to high executive pay, so a CEO worth $100 million is not going to get $100 million anymore. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2011, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-the-1-should-be-made-into-catfood/603781/127 "2011-11-26T14:59:09Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > I’m Kirk, right? Sorry, you’re the guy in the landing party wearing the red shirt. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2011, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-the-1-should-be-made-into-catfood/603781/128 "2011-11-26T16:04:11Z")
To be fair, he has his moments. Regrettably, they are moments. But he has them! ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2011, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-the-1-should-be-made-into-catfood/603781/129 "2011-11-28T14:33:20Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Well, while i might have focused on the super-rich in my previous post, because this thread is about the 1%, i have no problem with some tax increases for those who earn good money but are not in the super-rich class. I’m happy to increase the tax burden somewhat on just the plain old rich and the really well off. That’s all fine. I was responding to your specific point, in the text that I quoted. You were bemoaning the fact that “people on high 5-figure and low 6-figure incomes identify more with the 1% than with the 99%”, so that “we end up with situations where voters are unwilling to countenance tax increases for multimillionaires”. I responded by pointing out that many of these people suspect - with considerable justification, IMHO - that the “tax increases for multimillionaires” is just the slogan used to sell it to the public, and in the end it won’t really be “tax increases for multimillionaires”, and will ultimately impact _them_. So now you’re saying that yes, in fact, you yourself would also be in favor of tax increases for people who “earn good money but are not in the super-rich class”. Which is pretty much the point I was making, and undermines your earlier post. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2011, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-the-1-should-be-made-into-catfood/603781/130 "2011-11-28T15:45:28Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Which is pretty much the point I was making, and undermines your earlier post. Doesn’t undermine it in the least. The fact that i advocate a “tax the wealthy” plan _in addition to_ a “tax the super-rich” plan doesn’t undermine the latter, and nor does it undermine my point about perceptions regarding what it takes to be in the top 1%. While i believe in increased taxes on both the wealthy and the super-rich, and i fully accept that raising taxes _only_ on the super-rich isn’t likely to get the country out of its budget hole, taxing those people more means that we will not have to raise taxes _as much_ on the merely wealthy. As it stands, a person making two the three hundred grand in a comfortable, salaried position likely pays a considerably higher percentage of his or her income in tax than someone cruising by on 1 or 5 or 10 or 50 million a year from investments, company ownership, etc. That was the sense in which is was suggesting that they might have more in common with the 99%. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2011, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-the-1-should-be-made-into-catfood/603781/131 "2011-11-28T15:58:54Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > As it stands, a person making two the three hundred grand in a comfortable, salaried position likely pays a considerably higher percentage of his or her income in tax than someone cruising by on 1 or 5 or 10 or 50 million a year from investments, company ownership, etc. That was the sense in which is was suggesting that they might have more in common with the 99%. Yeah, but what they have in common with the 1% is that people like you are out to make them pay _even more_ in taxes, as you acknowledge. So when you talk about taxing the multimillionaires and wonder why the “comfortable, salaried” people don’t realize that you’re not talking about them, the answer is that they realize that they’re also very much in your sights. In addition, the same general principles that lead them to oppose increased taxes on themselves, also leads them to oppose increased taxes on the 1%. In sum, the people in the “comfortable, salaried position” are facing the same dynamic as the super-rich, as you acknowledge, and thus tend to identify with them as regards to these issues. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2011, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-the-1-should-be-made-into-catfood/603781/132 "2011-11-28T16:09:54Z")
Not denying that. I’ve never argued that they don’t identify with them, and i’ve never argued that they have _no_ reason to identify with them. Hell, there are people in the bottom 20% who still seem to identify with the super-rich in these debates, whether due to matters of real principle (such as libertarian beliefs in minimal government) or ignorant optimism (the belief that, one day, they will be in the top 1%). My point was merely that, in terms of interests, thing might be a bit more complicated. For example, the merely well off have, in some ways, greater incentive to ensure a more equitable wealth distribution, because they are less able than the truly rich to isolate themselves from the consequences of social decay. Sure, they can buy a nice beige house in a gated suburb, but they probably still need to interact with the _hoi polloi_ in their day-to-day lives, in a way that the really rich can avoid altogether if they want to. And all of this is rather irrelevant to my initial point in the thread, which was that the OP is not talking about the 1% as a mere numerical figure, but was using the term as a shorthand, specifically, for “the super rich who crashed the economy and were never held accountable.” ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2011, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-the-1-should-be-made-into-catfood/603781/133 "2011-11-28T16:20:52Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Not denying that. > > I’ve never argued that they don’t identify with them, and i’ve never argued that they have _no_ reason to identify with them. Hell, there are people in the bottom 20% who still seem to identify with the super-rich in these debates, whether due to matters of real principle (such as libertarian beliefs in minimal government) or ignorant optimism (the belief that, one day, they will be in the top 1%). > > My point was merely that, in terms of interests, thing might be a bit more complicated. For example, the merely well off have, in some ways, greater incentive to ensure a more equitable wealth distribution, because they are less able than the truly rich to isolate themselves from the consequences of social decay. Sure, they can buy a nice beige house in a gated suburb, but they probably still need to interact with the _hoi polloi_ in their day-to-day lives, in a way that the really rich can avoid altogether if they want to. OK. > [@](#): > > And all of this is rather irrelevant to my initial point in the thread, which was that the OP is not talking about the 1% as a mere numerical figure, but was using the term as a shorthand, specifically, for “the super rich who crashed the economy and were never held accountable.” I asn’t commenting on that, but now that you bring it up I would observe that while in theory people like the OP may be talking about the people you say, as a practical matter they tend to have very little ability or inclination to actually identify who the people are who “crashed the economy and were never held accountable”. One indicater would be the OP himself, who called for someone to be made into cat food based on ignorance of that person’s role in the relevant company, let alone economy. But this is also true as a general rule. As a result of this, people like myself tend to dismiss claims that the true ire is only directed “the super rich who crashed the economy and were never held accountable”. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2011, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-the-1-should-be-made-into-catfood/603781/134 "2011-11-28T17:31:17Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Yeah, but what they have in common with the 1% is that people like you are out to make them pay _even more_ in taxes, as you acknowledge. So when you talk about taxing the multimillionaires and wonder why the “comfortable, salaried” people don’t realize that you’re not talking about them, the answer is that they realize that they’re also very much in your sights. First, they came for Warren Buffet; and I said nothing, because I am not Warren Buffet… ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2011, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-the-1-should-be-made-into-catfood/603781/135 "2011-11-28T17:34:40Z")
> [@](#): > > …calling the 2008 federal takeover of the insurer unconstitutional. No consideration whatsoever of the fact that he is correct, I presume. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2011, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-the-1-should-be-made-into-catfood/603781/136 "2011-11-28T18:00:36Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > As a result of this, people like myself tend to dismiss claims that the true ire is only directed “the super rich who crashed the economy and were never held accountable”. Well, i can’t speak for the OP, but for me there is an important difference between directing my ire, on the one hand, and directing my policy preferences, on the other. The fact that i want the wealthy to pay more tax doesn’t mean that i hate them, or am angry at them. I have a friend who is comfortably in the top 2 or 3% of incomes. He’s a good guy, we enjoy each other’s company, and i still think he should pay more income tax. It’s not about him being evil, or bad, or even selfish; it’s about my own position on what constitutes good public policy. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2011, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-the-1-should-be-made-into-catfood/603781/137 "2011-11-28T18:48:42Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > No consideration whatsoever of the fact that he is correct, I presume. Cite, you chucklefuck? Preferably something that actually exists in the same universe as the point you’re trying to make? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-why-the-1-should-be-made-into-catfood/603781.md?page=6)