The law vs the greater good

[nehalem256]

Everyone knows God doesn't care about how greedy you were during your life. All that matter is whether or not you were baptised. It's not like greed is one of the seven deadly sins or anything.

He is probably to busy crying over all the babies liberals abort to have time to worry about greed

 

[CycloWizard]

That is the epitome of a stupid question. Greed does not = survival.

How do you define greed then? I should work for subsistence and nothing more, else I'm greedy? If that's the case, then I doubt many of the PhD's working in these pharma labs would have spent 10+ years in higher education only to work 80 hours a week and none of these things would even exist. Money is the motivation for people to work hard and produce something that other people need (or, at least, value).

 

[Pr0d1gy]

How do you define greed then? I should work for subsistence and nothing more, else I'm greedy? If that's the case, then I doubt many of the PhD's working in these pharma labs would have spent 10+ years in higher education only to work 80 hours a week and none of these things would even exist. Money is the motivation for people to work hard and produce something that other people need (or, at least, value).

I define greed the same way Merriam-Webster does:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/greed

: a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed


Of course what is needed could be a subjective discussion, but you don't NEED 100k a year to live very comfortably in this country.

 

[Retro Rob]

How do you define greed then? I should work for subsistence and nothing more, else I'm greedy? If that's the case, then I doubt many of the PhD's working in these pharma labs would have spent 10+ years in higher education only to work 80 hours a week and none of these things would even exist. Money is the motivation for people to work hard and produce something that other people need (or, at least, value).

That is an unavoidable result.

True, they want to help society, but they work for the inflation of their own personal banking account and investment options... and they likely have 100k+ in loans to pay back and vacation homes somewhere.

I personally don't see anything wrong with this until, for instance, a CEO cuts half the workforce and collects 10s of millions in bonuses.

Then greed rears it head - when the one man's loss contributes to another man's wealth.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No i wouldnt in my field. But in the field of caring and saving lives. Id work for a lot less than Dr. make currently. In that line of work curing/healing people should be the rewards. That is the problem with healthcare currently. Its too expensive because most people invovled in it are chasing the money and not doing it for what should be the right reasons.

Now the Dr.'s that go into Africa and other poorer countries and do work for free or very little, get mad props from me for doing what Dr.'s should do. Care.

You sound like such a caring compassionate religious conservative.

I think you should become a physician then. In a dozen years, more or less you can demonstrate the moral standard you hold others to. BTW caring and being properly compensated for ones time, effort, loss of earnings while in training, debt, and other factors you couldn't understand aren't mutually exclusive. Become a provider, see reality and then come back and preach.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Really, you can't even supply a link to a nutjob website but you want me to give line numbers from textbooks? And I went digging for a definition that suited my purpose - in the Merriam-Webster dictionary - the most-used dictionary in the United States? You really are an asshole. A very ignorant asshole, at that. You have forks, fire, wheels, clothing. I have satellites, tanks, missiles, transistors, telephones, software, coffee makers, television, VHS, CDs, radios, radar, airplanes, helicopters, energy systems, modern medicine, medical devices, composite materials, chemistry, the internet, computers, lasers, masers, motors, engines, sensors, actuators, control systems, digital imaging, chemical processing, structural engineering, microwave ovens, many genres of music and art, plastics, wireless technology, and other things I can't even see from my desk here. You're either completely retarded, bad at math, or too stupid to admit you're wrong even when it's woefully obvious to everyone around you.

Mine was Oxford English...THE source for the English language.

As for the rest, I never said there haven't been inventions since 1450. I never said none of them mattered at all, or weren't impressive. I merely said, and showed, that we're dealing with an ENORMOUS body of early inventions to compare it against...most of which are not only what allowed later inventions, but the flourishing of life itself. If you can't see that, then I don't know why we're still talking.

 

[CycloWizard]

Mine was Oxford English...THE source for the English language.

As for the rest, I never said there haven't been inventions since 1450. I never said none of them mattered at all, or weren't impressive. I merely said, and showed, that we're dealing with an ENORMOUS body of early inventions to compare it against...most of which are not only what allowed later inventions, but the flourishing of life itself. If you can't see that, then I don't know why we're still talking.

Where did you show ANYTHING in this thread? All of your posts are simply tortuous garbles of angry spew. You've yet to offer a single bit of evidence to support your (obviously incorrect) premise. Anyone who has ever even begun a study of the history of innovation knows that your premise is completely backwards. It has been been studied mathematically (as I pointed out earlier and you completely ignored). It has been studied sociologically. It has been studied in a quantitative historical aspect (one of the entire books I linked to previously contains this sort of analysis - again ignored by you). At this point, your ignorance is simply willful: you have decided to remain an idiot. In making that decision, you have damned yourself to the life of a zombie.

 

[CycloWizard]

I define greed the same way Merriam-Webster does:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/greed

: a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed


Of course what is needed could be a subjective discussion, but you don't NEED 100k a year to live very comfortably in this country.

I challenge your premise. Your definition of "very comfortably" is based on subjective opinion. Instead of attempting to define an objective standard based on a completely subjective basis, perhaps you should consider a different perspective as follows.

Money is a reward from society to an individual for doing work that society values. Thus, the more valuable an individual's work is to society, the more money they stand to make. If an individual stops working when they reach your $100k threshold, society suffers because the additional work that person might have done otherwise simply isn't done. This leads to the question: should someone continue working for free after they achieve your imaginary threshold? Why would they? Money is the motivation for most people to work. The more money they stand to make for an increment of work, the more likely they are to exert that effort. No one in a communist society (which you are effectively arguing for) will work 100 hours a week because they have no motivation to do it. There must be a driving force for work to get done. In the absence of it, people are simply slaves to the "greater good."

 

[PrinceofWands]

Where did you show ANYTHING in this thread? All of your posts are simply tortuous garbles of angry spew. You've yet to offer a single bit of evidence to support your (obviously incorrect) premise. Anyone who has ever even begun a study of the history of innovation knows that your premise is completely backwards. It has been been studied mathematically (as I pointed out earlier and you completely ignored). It has been studied sociologically. It has been studied in a quantitative historical aspect (one of the entire books I linked to previously contains this sort of analysis - again ignored by you). At this point, your ignorance is simply willful: you have decided to remain an idiot. In making that decision, you have damned yourself to the life of a zombie.

If all you're gonna do is close your eyes and cover your ears and stomp your feet then there doesn't need to be two of us involved. I stand by everything I've said, and if you don't see it, the convo is effectively over.

 

[CycloWizard]

That is an unavoidable result.

True, they want to help society, but they work for the inflation of their own personal banking account and investment options... and they likely have 100k+ in loans to pay back and vacation homes somewhere.

I personally don't see anything wrong with this until, for instance, a CEO cuts half the workforce and collects 10s of millions in bonuses.

Then greed rears it head - when the one man's loss contributes to another man's wealth.

Why should a CEO keep an individual around who is losing the company money? Since companies exist to make as much money as they can, the CEO is obliged to fire any employee not making more for the company than he costs. These are not difficult concepts, at least for anyone who has ever studied algebra, but I suppose the recent media onslaught attacking the rich has people worried much more about perception and buzzwords than math and reality.

 

[CycloWizard]

If all you're gonna do is close your eyes and cover your ears and stomp your feet then there doesn't need to be two of us involved. I stand by everything I've said, and if you don't see it, the convo is effectively over.

I've given plenty of evidence of that. Not only have you failed to rebut, you've refused outright. Everything you've said is factually wrong, yet you have tied your anchor to it. Throw it in the ocean.

 

[sunzt]

We need to increase gov funding for certain types of cures. If the gov discovers the cure to HIV/AIDS or certain cancers then everyone would be served better since a company wouldn't own the patent.

 

[Retro Rob]

Why should a CEO keep an individual around who is losing the company money? Since companies exist to make as much money as they can, the CEO is obliged to fire any employee not making more for the company than he costs. These are not difficult concepts, at least for anyone who has ever studied algebra, but I suppose the recent media onslaught attacking the rich has people worried much more about perception and buzzwords than math and reality.

I may be missing something.. but if the company is losing money, how can a big bonus be justified?

Oh, I agree with getting rid of people bleeding the company. I was just saying that it's hard to fathom how company losses can result in a gain for someone else.

Cool off, dude... I don't want to take anyone's money....

So, you don't think a CEO cutting half a workforce and collecting the extra funds to his pocket, is wrong? I've worked for a company that cut 20% from employees pay, then offered to give it back ... pro-rated. Not to mention, bonuses were handed out "upstairs". I've yet to hear a valid justification for that. Shame, because Net profits showed progressive increase. I dunno...

We've heard nothing.

 

[soulcougher73]

I think you should become a physician then. In a dozen years, more or less you can demonstrate the moral standard you hold others to. BTW caring and being properly compensated for ones time, effort, loss of earnings while in training, debt, and other factors you couldn't understand aren't mutually exclusive. Become a provider, see reality and then come back and preach.

You should read all my responces before mouthing off. All of that is covered in them.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Money is a reward from society to an individual for doing work that society values. Thus, the more valuable an individual's work is to society, the more money they stand to make. If an individual stops working when they reach your $100k threshold, society suffers because the additional work that person might have done otherwise simply isn't done. This leads to the question: should someone continue working for free after they achieve your imaginary threshold? Why would they? Money is the motivation for most people to work. The more money they stand to make for an increment of work, the more likely they are to exert that effort. No one in a communist society (which you are effectively arguing for) will work 100 hours a week because they have no motivation to do it. There must be a driving force for work to get done. In the absence of it, people are simply slaves to the "greater good."

Perhaps you should consider that many people making money hand over fist aren't worth the money they are making. How does a CEO who outsources and offshores millions in payroll worth all of that money that he eventually just pockets himself? Oh, because he can do simple math and commit a near-treasonous act against his countrymen he is worth tens of millions of dollars?

Nice logic, for a calculator.

 

[Retro Rob]

Perhaps you should consider that many people making money hand over fist aren't worth the money they are making. How does a CEO who outsources and offshores millions in payroll worth all of that money that he eventually just pockets himself? Oh, because he can do simple math and commit a near-treasonous act against his countrymen he is worth tens of millions of dollars?

Nice logic, for a calculator.

I don't think it's a coincidence company's like Google, and Quickenloans are growing in overall employee satisfaction. I know that employees are a company's biggest expense, but they are an investment.

Investing in employees = happy employees which = better, quality productivity, and happy clients. They can get anything from us if they treat us the way they want to be treated.

Take money/benefits = walking over employees = toilet-level morale which = doing less as possible and running home a 5pm. That, in turn, increases the turnover rate if/when someone comes with a similar or better offer.

Making huge profits and investing in employees are not mutually exclusive, IMO.

 

[CycloWizard]

I may be missing something.. but if the company is losing money, how can a big bonus be justified?

Oh, I agree with getting rid of people bleeding the company. I was just saying that it's hard to fathom how company losses can result in a gain for someone else.

Cool off, dude... I don't want to take anyone's money....

So, you don't think a CEO cutting half a workforce and collecting the extra funds to his pocket, is wrong? I've worked for a company that cut 20% from employees pay, then offered to give it back ... pro-rated. Not to mention, bonuses were handed out "upstairs". I've yet to hear a valid justification for that. Shame, because Net profits showed progressive increase. I dunno...

We've heard nothing.

It's not my business what a company does with its money. They can run it into the ground as far as I'm concerned. If I'm a shareholder, that's a different story, but if a business I owned stock in was tanking, I would probably get out. The pervasive mindset that "we the people" (or, in reality, the government) needs to micromanage everything going on is creating more problems than it's solving. I recently saw a good video on this subject - I highly recommend it.

 

[Retro Rob]

It's not my business what a company does with its money. They can run it into the ground as far as I'm concerned. If I'm a shareholder, that's a different story, but if a business I owned stock in was tanking, I would probably get out. The pervasive mindset that "we the people" (or, in reality, the government) needs to micromanage everything going on is creating more problems than it's solving. I recently saw a good video on this subject - I highly recommend it.

Not what I was asking.

Nice dodge, though...

 

[CycloWizard]

Perhaps you should consider that many people making money hand over fist aren't worth the money they are making. How does a CEO who outsources and offshores millions in payroll worth all of that money that he eventually just pockets himself? Oh, because he can do simple math and commit a near-treasonous act against his countrymen he is worth tens of millions of dollars?

Nice logic, for a calculator.

Who decides what someone is worth? You? Your mindset is fundamentally flawed in that you think the CEO owes something to you personally or to the nation as a whole. He doesn't. His job is to make as much money for the company as he can. Period. Why is it any of your business how he does it?

 

[CycloWizard]

Not what I was asking.

Nice dodge, though...

You asked an irrelevant question. It's none of my business how a company justifies its bonuses. I simply skipped the irrelevant question and headed straight for your faulty premise.

 

[Retro Rob]

You asked an irrelevant question. It's none of my business how a company justifies its bonuses. I simply skipped the irrelevant question and headed straight for your faulty premise.

I asked whether or not you personally thought it was fair... not if they should do it or not.. if I did, my bad.

I don't expect an answer, though. Keep dodging....

 

[CycloWizard]

I asked whether or not you personally thought it was fair... not if they should do it or not.. if I did, my bad.

I don't expect an answer, though. Keep dodging....

That's NOT what you asked. You asked,

I may be missing something.. but if the company is losing money, how can a big bonus be justified?

To answer your new question, a bonus could be justified even if a company is losing money if the CEO came in when the company was in a bad spot and did what needed to be done to turn things around. Simply because the company lost money in that quarter doesn't mean he didn't do an exceptional job. Some times short term losses are required for long-term growth. So no, I don't think it's inherently unfair for a CEO to get a bonus if a company is losing money.

 

[Retro Rob]

Simply because the company lost money in that quarter doesn't mean he didn't do an exceptional job. Some times short term losses are required for long-term growth. So no, I don't think it's inherently unfair for a CEO to get a bonus if a company is losing money.

I don't think it is unfair either if they turn around... IF they do.

What gets most people is that they become victims of bad leadership and get their job/pay cut.

If losses, for instance, justify paycuts, then no bonuses should be given out to anyone. He may still have done a good job, but so have the guys on the bottom. If they want to reward hard work and effort (even though the CEO has much more responsibility and should get more than the lower-level workers) they should do it across the board.

That's what I don't get sometimes to be honest.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Patients are a joke. Recent development likely had their roots in the past . As the people in control released old knowledge to the new minds in a timely fashion so as to give the appearance of progress . Rather than showing the decay of humanity since times past . Prove any of the modern men invented anything . You can't because they haven't.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NaXj_TbSoM

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Who decides what someone is worth? You? Your mindset is fundamentally flawed in that you think the CEO owes something to you personally or to the nation as a whole. He doesn't. His job is to make as much money for the company as he can. Period. Why is it any of your business how he does it?

Well if it is this country that allows him to make all that money he most certainly DOES owe something to the rest of us. Your mindset is flawed in that you do not care about this country at all. I find that to be more than a little disturbing.

You're basically saying it is ok to destroy the fabric of this country for profit, which is a disgusting notion. Your parents and grandparents would be ashamed of you if you are truly an American, which I seriously quesiton at this point.