Is a $70,000 Base Salary Unjust and Corrupting?

[Derek McGowan]

while the "moochers" who stay behind, only meriting under-average pay, will likely bring down the company.

Why does there seem to be this assumption that moochers were even hired at the job? I mean couldn't there be the case that the company has a rigorous interview and training process? I'm not saying that they do but several of the comments here make it seem like the workers voted for this base salary hike. Like they formed a union or all got together and screamed for what they deserved. Lets be clear that this was the decision of one free mind. It was a surprise to the employees from what I've read about the case.

Do you assume that Google will be brought down by the "moochers" software engineers who all make over 80,000? Or do you assume that Google only hired people who were worth 80 grand?

[Brant Gaede]

The difference between this item and Starnesville is in Starnesville it was put to the vote reflecting general moral democratic rot. This was just a stupid thing imposed from the top. Business is full of stupid and ignorant decisions so almost every company eventually goes out of business or is taken over by another. Eventually even General Electric, now with over 1/2 trillion of debt, will go too even though the name won't. That's too valuable, for now.

To the extent there is rot is the extent the CEO is being applauded. The applause doesn't seem to be coming from the benefited employees so much. They can be assumed to be highly intelligent considering the nature of their work and must be afraid of the company going belly up.

This discussion still needs it seems to me to be about the relationship between the moral and the practical and Rand's idea that they are integrated, to wit: the moral is the practical and the practical is the moral for you can only delusionally and arbitrarially cleave them apart*. That's a huge Rand lesson our (oops!--sorry, Greg) Greg seems to have taken to heart, but most Objectivists have not properly absorbed with necessary but disowned or never owned critical thinking, the most basic failure of the Objectivist corpus. This failure is necessary for the coverup of the fact that Objectivism as the philosophy of Ayn Rand is not the same as Objectivism per se. Every Objectivist has their own Objectivism but it cannot be made real and proper without understanding the more basic Objectvism built on four, basic individual but integrated principles (from metaphysics, epistemology, ethics [morality], and politics) based on the fundamental individualism of the thinking, learning, sovereign mind. It contradicts Rand worship. It contradicts therefore acknowledging her tremendous accomplishments in her eyes and others' eyes. Objectivism as the philosophy of man as a heroic being** with this or that additional attributes is not basic Objectivism though it was hers from A to Z and may be others but not so well. Basic Objectivism is merely the philosophy that sees man as a realistic and critical thinker--or should be. That's right out of its axiomatic premises.

--Brant

*not my thread

**was/is a Randian hero a real hero?

[anthony]

while the "moochers" who stay behind, only meriting under-average pay, will likely bring down the company.

Why does there seem to be this assumption that moochers were even hired at the job? I mean couldn't there be the case that the company has a rigorous interview and training process? I'm not saying that they do but several of the comments here make it seem like the workers voted for this base salary hike. Like they formed a union or all got together and screamed for what they deserved. Lets be clear that this was the decision of one free mind. It was a surprise to the employees from what I've read about the case.

Do you assume that Google will be brought down by the "moochers" software engineers who all make over 80,000? Or do you assume that Google only hired people who were worth 80 grand?

A CEO doesn't know a person's value to him and his company until well after he hires him. Your emphasis on the hiring stage freezes whatever shifts of direction and changes of intensity individuals will make, over time. In business today, a company has to keep innovating to survive, it seems. That's driven by those individuals who aren't just marking time, doing a job just well enough. These, in this context, I called the "moochers", who would normally do okay and be useful - when mixed in with the stronger performers. This CEO will have himself to blame when - again, over time - the 'average' (in performance, income and expectation) drives out the 'good'. Of course that's his right, but it would be irrational according to the nature of men and of doing business.

[Brant Gaede]

BTW, to answer Ed's question beginning this thread: not necessarily.

--Brant

[Selene]

This discussion still needs it seems to me to be about the relationship between the moral and the practical and Rand's idea that they are integrated, to wit: the moral is the practical and the practical is the moral for you can only delusionally and arbitrarially cleave them apart*. That's a huge Rand lesson our (oops!--sorry, Greg) Greg seems to have taken to heart, but most Objectivists have not properly absorbed with necessary but disowned or never owned critical thinking, the most basic failure of the Objectivist corpus. This failure is necessary for the coverup of the fact that Objectivism as the philosophy of Ayn Rand is not the same as Objectivism per se. Every Objectivist has their own Objectivism but it cannot be made real and proper without understanding the more basic Objectvism built on four, basic individual but integrated principles (from metaphysics, epistemology, ethics [morality], and politics) based on the fundamental individualism of the thinking, learning, sovereign mind. It contradicts Rand worship. It contradicts therefore acknowledging her tremendous accomplishments in her eyes and others' eyes. Objectivism as the philosophy of man as a heroic being** with this or that additional attributes is not basic Objectivism though it was hers from A to Z and may be others but not so well. Basic Objectivism is merely the philosophy that sees man as a realistic and critical thinker--or should be. That's right out of its axiomatic premises.

--Brant

*not my thread

**was/is a Randian hero a real hero?

And the reason you are not writing a book is ?????

Here is a Randian Objectivism test...what was the Judge writing into the Constitution of the United States when he was in the secret hideaway?

Second, since you clearly identify politics as a basic foundational pillar of Rand's Objectivism, it was truly sad that her own personal failings caused her to hide from politics in the real world.

Finally, did I mention that you should be writing a book, long essay, etc?

Oops...guess I did...

[anthony]

Politics is the logical outcome, Adam. Beginning from man's metaphysical nature, and so on. Not therefore a pillar.

What was the judge reworking in the Constitution again? I've forgotten.

[Brant Gaede]

This discussion still needs it seems to me to be about the relationship between the moral and the practical and Rand's idea that they are integrated, to wit: the moral is the practical and the practical is the moral for you can only delusionally and arbitrarially cleave them apart*. That's a huge Rand lesson our (oops!--sorry, Greg) Greg seems to have taken to heart, but most Objectivists have not properly absorbed with necessary but disowned or never owned critical thinking, the most basic failure of the Objectivist corpus. This failure is necessary for the coverup of the fact that Objectivism as the philosophy of Ayn Rand is not the same as Objectivism per se. Every Objectivist has their own Objectivism but it cannot be made real and proper without understanding the more basic Objectvism built on four, basic individual but integrated principles (from metaphysics, epistemology, ethics [morality], and politics) based on the fundamental individualism of the thinking, learning, sovereign mind. It contradicts Rand worship. It contradicts therefore acknowledging her tremendous accomplishments in her eyes and others' eyes. Objectivism as the philosophy of man as a heroic being** with this or that additional attributes is not basic Objectivism though it was hers from A to Z and may be others but not so well. Basic Objectivism is merely the philosophy that sees man as a realistic and critical thinker--or should be. That's right out of its axiomatic premises.

--Brant

*not my thread

**was/is a Randian hero a real hero?

And the reason you are not writing a book is ?????

Here is a Randian Objectivism test...what was the Judge writing into the Constitution of the United States when he was in the secret hideaway?

Second, since you clearly identify politics as a basic foundational pillar of Rand's Objectivism, it was truly sad that her own personal failings caused her to hide from politics in the real world.

Finally, did I mention that you should be writing a book, long essay, etc?

Oops...guess I did...

I have five books in mind. One is on safe driving aimed at semi-tractor truck drivers which would require me going back on the road for six months, but not just for them. I have a title if it's available. The second, for doing first, is a true basic primer on Objectivism which simply does not exist, not the way it needs to be done. The third is a stand alone book to my grandfather's book--or an appendix--on the Bill of Rights. The fourth is a follow up book on Objectivism, a big maybe. The last is a novel. I think the novel would sell well for narative power and witty dialogue and no attempt to be literary. There is a lot to be said for literary and that's what Rand did with The Fountainhead more than anywhere else, but I'd be hard put to match up with something like that, never mind its greatness as such. I wouldn't try to imitate her or write an "Objectivist" work of fiction, but it would have to be well and climax plotted. The best example of that for me is Victor Hugo's Ninety-Three. It's not so long as to be a bother, but tell me of any other novel with such a powerful climatic punch. Oh yes, it's literary too boot.

I've found there is massive improvement in my writing if I lose a post and have to rewrite it from scratch. For a professional product and the best I can do needs 4 - 7 rewrites. That's when I really like what I'm looking at. Damn! Did I do that? All these projects would require me leaving OL except for the basic primer and in a sense I've written a lot of it first drafty here already. So that's how I will start. It's the easiest and most important. The driving book would be a hoot, which you'd understand immediately if I told you the title for I'd layer in much more than driving by also using its safe driving theme as trampoline for metaphor.

The reason I've not started to date is my complicated, personal situation. Some of it brutal. And there's a deeper, psychological current. My best psychological matchup for doing something is jumping out of airplanes and killing (bad) people. There is actually one place in the world for me to do that and do it as a remorseless killer, which I wasn't in Vietnam--that is, remorseless. The body and my sanity aren't up to it. The next best fantasy involves a tropical beach and nubile young women (regretting the gal I left on death row for filthy lucre and a crime I was also guilty of, among others?). The last best is posting on an Objectivist site--wait! I'm already doing that! (None are so blind as them that do not open their eyeballs.)

--Brant

so after the basic (much more than the "basic" described in the quote) it's the novel where I'm on the beach as rest and relaxation from killing (bad) people, but written in the third person regretting not a damn thing

(1) the judge was correcting the mistakes and contradictions of the original document

(2) the politics is the last of the four principles in the vertical philosophical stack with the whole thing foundational on the axioms or metaphysics-epistemology and it's Rand's concentrating on ethics and morality that leaves politics short-changed, so to say, as well as the fact that utopianism in politics is more glaringly hard to deal with than in ethics even though her ethics, practically speaking as reflected in fictional human being, is also problematic to the extent it posits perfection as an actual ideal and possibility--that's a silly way to try to live, especially when the focus should simply be on honesty and integrity and not being a John Galt poseur (growing up is learning from wrong from and to oneself and going on in better, happier ways--it is not being oblivious to what happened that enabled adulthood--that's the way of The Disowned Self

[william.scherk]

Here is a Randian Objectivism test...what was the Judge writing into the Constitution of the United States when he was in the secret hideaway?

The rectangle of light in the acres of a farm was the window of the library of Judge Narragansett. He sat at a table, and the light of his lamp fell on the copy of an ancient document. He had marked and crossed out the contradictions in its statements that had once been the cause of its destruction. He was now adding a new clause to its pages: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade ..."

I can't remember if there was any detail of the crossed-out contradictions.

[Brant Gaede]

Ah, I didn't remember enough. But I didn't cheat and peek. Did you?

--Brant

[Selene]

Here is a Randian Objectivism test...what was the Judge writing into the Constitution of the United States when he was in the secret hideaway?

The rectangle of light in the acres of a farm was the window of the library of Judge Narragansett. He sat at a table, and the light of his lamp fell on the copy of an ancient document. He had marked and crossed out the contradictions in its statements that had once been the cause of its destruction. He was now adding a new clause to its pages: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade ..."

I can't remember if there was any detail of the crossed-out contradictions.

Excellent William.

We should offer that to the Article V conventions in our respective states when we get that chance.

[william.scherk]

Ah, I didn't remember enough. But I didn't cheat and peek. Did you?

Of course. I only vaguely remembered that scene. I had to look it up and type out the passage.

[Selene]

Ah, I didn't remember enough. But I didn't cheat and peek. Did you?

Of course. I only vaguely remembered that scene. I had to look it up and type out the passage.

OL researchers ..... we are Obsessive Lookers

[Brant Gaede]

Ah, I didn't remember enough. But I didn't cheat and peek. Did you?

Of course. I only vaguely remembered that scene. I had to look it up and type out the passage.

William's a cheater. William's a cheater!

--Gotcha Man

[moralist]

Unfortunately Baal, JTS is immune to the actual effects of reality (like the way free market prices and wages are determined)

By trial and error I discovered that I can become immune to the effects of the economic reality created by the unproductive sloth and fiscal irresponsibility of others by creating my own free market Capitalist economic micro climate. Most people don't realize just how much power they can actually wield as a sovereign individual to make their own "weather".

Greg

[moralist]

Even sworn collectivist-Unionist-utopian-socialists grasp that men are unequal in terms of excellence, productivity and ability, which is why they can't function without some type of force to support them.

Isn't it funny how the ONLY ones concerned about "income inequality" are the failures who can't pull their own weight!

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Unfortunately Baal, JTS is immune to the actual effects of reality (like the way free market prices and wages are determined)

By trial and error I discovered that I can become immune to the effects of the economic reality created by the unproductive sloth and fiscal irresponsibility of others by creating my own free market Capitalist economic micro climate. Most people don't realize just how much power they can actually wield as a sovereign individual to make their own "weather".

Greg

You got it to rain?

--Brant

https://youtu.be/tV9eZmDAx6k

[moralist]

Unfortunately Baal, JTS is immune to the actual effects of reality (like the way free market prices and wages are determined)

By trial and error I discovered that I can become immune to the effects of the economic reality created by the unproductive sloth and fiscal irresponsibility of others by creating my own free market Capitalist economic micro climate. Most people don't realize just how much power they can actually wield as a sovereign individual to make their own "weather".

Greg

You got it to rain?

I got rain to be irrelevant.

Since we process and store every drop of water from our sewage

all of our trees and vines are totally soaked with plenty of water left over.

Greg

[Derek McGowan]

Unfortunately Baal, JTS is immune to the actual effects of reality (like the way free market prices and wages are determined)

By trial and error I discovered that I can become immune to the effects of the economic reality created by the unproductive sloth and fiscal irresponsibility of others by creating my own free market Capitalist economic micro climate. Most people don't realize just how much power they can actually wield as a sovereign individual to make their own "weather".

Greg

well if I were you, as more success comes your way make sure you don't pass even the slightest increase onto any of your partners or employees because you'll be compared to the 20th Century Motor company

[Brant Gaede]

Unfortunately Baal, JTS is immune to the actual effects of reality (like the way free market prices and wages are determined)

By trial and error I discovered that I can become immune to the effects of the economic reality created by the unproductive sloth and fiscal irresponsibility of others by creating my own free market Capitalist economic micro climate. Most people don't realize just how much power they can actually wield as a sovereign individual to make their own "weather".

Greg

well if I were you, as more success comes your way make sure you don't pass even the slightest increase onto any of your partners or employees because you'll be compared to the 20th Century Motor company

Now this is interesting to me for clarity. I think this matter in your lights should be considered in the context of the liability and effect to the business. The first job of the CEO should be not to bankrupt or ruin the business, I would think. If all we're talking about is how to run this or that business, OL is not a business forum. You and Greg, however, are best and most knowledgeable for that here in so far as I have information about all the Tom, Dicks, Harrys and Brants.

But just underneath the surface, threatening to rise up like a monster from the vasty deep, are all those Starnesville moral issues we are supposed to be sublimating here? If it's just washers, nuts and bolts, that's the discussion they have constantly in Bentonville. Personally I think Wal Mart should stop buying back its own stock and use that money to raise wages except it might threaten its employees food stamps and other "benefits." (Why? To benefit the company's profitability.) Wal Mart is the single largest business beneficiary from those. Isn't it more productive to talk about Wal Mart on OL from what I think is your primary perspective than that CEO incompetent in Seattle? So this is my question to you: Just what do you want to talk about? A moral issue per a business, a moral issue per any individual? Any moral issue? It can't be just nuts and bolts. What Greg does works for him for no one works for him except as a customer wanting some work done. He's a one man band. He has food, clothing and shelter. At least I don't think he lives on the beach in Santa Monica visiting an Internet cafe to post.

--Brant

[moralist]

well if I were you, as more success comes your way make sure you don't pass even the slightest increase onto any of your partners or employees because you'll be compared to the 20th Century Motor company

Well, I don't care what I'm compared to, Derek.

And like Brant said, I don't have any employees. I made this choice because of the government regulations in California and it was the best thing I ever did, because a one man business is exempt from LOTS of restrictions. I enjoy freedom as an individual Capitalist entrepreneur that people only dream of. But with no employees, I do pass on my success onto my customers by undercharging them for my products and services, because I operate so efficiently with an extremely high profit margin and low business overhead. The goodwill of others is more rewarding than profits. Goodwill is what insures success in business as in life. My net worth is a million+ and have zero debt.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

If a doctor didn't accept third party payers and restrictions that come with them he could afford to charge you less per visit, maybe 50% less. Why would he need any office staff? When you call he picks up the phone.

--Brant

[Derek McGowan]

Isn't it more productive to talk about Wal Mart on OL from what I think is your primary perspective than that CEO incompetent in Seattle? So this is my question to you: Just what do you want to talk about? A moral issue per a business, a moral issue per any individual? Any moral issue? It can't be just nuts and bolts.

--Brant

I think my biggest problem with the 20th century comparisons and the claims of separating pay from performance is the lack of allowing freedom of different businesses or individuals to choose and experiment on how they run their lives/businesses. I wasn't attempting to discuss nuts and bolts as far as the business success or failure is concerned. I make no analysis or prediction on whether this decision was supported by the companies financials or by how canny or profession the CEO is.

I simply feel that the article is written in a clearly biased fashion, trumping up the fact that two employees out of hundreds has quit over the decision, and I have a problem when people blindly jump on the bandwagon condemning someone (in moral terms) for a decision that the commentators don't agree with. Especially when we can easily find other examples in history or even possibly in those commentators lives where they would justify those exact same decisions.

Example Moralist, who from a business perspective I respect, jumped in immediately claiming that the decision to give people money without performance was morally wrong but then in his last post (#70) says that he happily undercharges customers simply because he feels like it. If we took the strict Objectivist, black or white, right or wrong stance shouldn't his actions be considered immoral as well? If his customers have not done any more than usual then rewarding them with cheaper prices is wrong. Not according to me, but according to that logic.

The raising of the base pay could very well be a disaster from a nut and bolts view but that's what the market is for. People make decisions, and either those decisions weed those decision makers out (providing precedence for later decision makers) or they rise. Hindsight will then attach all sorts of justifications as to why this or that situation is different. "Paying these employees much higher than market rates helped x company attract and retain the best talent" or "Paying these employees much higher than the market rate was the fatal decision that broke x company's back"

From my perspective all that is nonsense. Unless you have actual numbers than all you have is speculation. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against prediction or even betting on an outcome, where I have a problem is when moral considerations are attached to it. You can say that I predict this company or decision will fail but I draw the line if you say that they will fail because their decision is evil or corrupting.

p.s. I'm talking about individuals making decisions in a free market. Of course true evil can come into play when you have a over powered, force driven socialistic scheme that for the greater good breaks people's spirits.

[Derek McGowan]

Isn't it funny how the ONLY ones concerned about "income inequality" are the failures who can't pull their own weight!

I feel the same way but in reverse. Only those who are worried about what others make are failures who need to spend more time worrying about themselves than others

[moralist]

Isn't it funny how the ONLY ones concerned about "income inequality" are the failures who can't pull their own weight!

I feel the same way but in reverse. Only those who are worried about what others make are failures who need to spend more time worrying about themselves than others

I totally agree, Derek.

People don't understand that it's their own envy that makes them into failures and keeps them there.

Greg

[moralist]

If a doctor didn't accept third party payers and restrictions that come with them he could afford to charge you less per visit, maybe 50% less. Why would he need any office staff? When you call he picks up the phone.

--Brant

My dentist offers me nice discounts for direct payment outside of the corrupt liberal third party payer healthcare insurance sucker scam.

Greg