His story isn't wildly different than mine. While I was going to college I had a job in the technical support field. By the time I had finished school, I was full blown into that career. (I certainly didn't finish school with a good gpa) The tech job led me into other opportunities. By now, my college degree is fairly worthless in that I haven't used the actual skillsets for years. (the last time was writing game reviews and Nuggets articles when I was traveling less)

He'll make his money after he is done being governor.

He alone makes more than about 90% of U.S. households.

Wow, it's amazing how differently people view certain salaries. To me, $137k would certainly qualify as setting the world on fire.

Where I live, 137k is basically fuck you money.

In California you'd be doing ok. In Mississippi, you would own half the state.

Since the governors of the United States make up 1/6,000,000 of the population you might expect him to be up there in salary.

Incidentally, he's 19th among governor salaries (just for some perspective on that number vs his peers).

Around here it's more like "get fucked" money.

Fuck, I guess I should be applying for welfare.

Much like they speak of "two Georgias" there's definitely two (or three) sides of Athens. What would pass for middle class mostly left Clarke County ages ago.

It is quite staggering how prices differ based on locale. I lived in Winona, MN for college and a year beyond. I was able to rent a kickass 1-bedroom apartment with a nice view of the river for $400. Paid $1100 when I moved to Chicago for a place that was a little smaller. And that was largely considered a good deal for the neighborhood I was in at the time.

If I can save up enough in my lifetime, I'd be half tempted to move out to a rural community and live like a king. You can't get a good condo here for under $300k, I can get an enormous house for that in the country.

Texas has two courts at its highest appellate level: one for civil cases and one for criminal.

FWIW, if you aren't accustomed to rural living, I'd advise extreme caution before ever making that (hypothetical) purchase. I grew up with it but by the time I hit adulthood it damned near drove me batshit crazy.

The benchmark I'd suggest using is "how long is the commute to X,Y, and Z that you really enjoy". Anything more than a small difference I'd advise significant caution.

From what I see though, the vast majority of the US do not have jobs that justify higher pay.

Most people in data entry do not have a highly skilled position.
Most people that are clerks do not have a ton of hard to replace skills.
Burger flippers and restraunteurs do not have a hard to replace skill set.
Distribution personnel, truck drivers, lift drivers, etc., do not have hard to replace skill sets.

People who design, make, and dream up ideas have hard to replace skill sets.
Successful salesmen have hard to replace skill sets.
People who fix durable goods have hard to replace skill sets.

The problem with our country is that all of our hard to replace skilled labor positions we're sending overseas (except for sales). Those are those middle class jobs, well paying jobs, that we are sending overseas. Some have come back, but the roadblocks for many of those businesses to operate here are hard to overcome.

Which, in turn, also suffers loss in some (many?) sectors because in a consolidated age, it simply takes fewer (U.S.) people than ever before to maintain those accounts.

It obviously varies by sector, but the decline in media sales forces has been pretty dramatic. The en masse layoffs like Clear Channel's Black Fridays made the news but smaller but steady reductions that see TV and radio stations eliminating entire sales staffs by essentially contracting out their sales to a competitor who then jointly sells both stations takes a toll as well. That's something that becoming more and more common, it's actually more efficient & makes good business sense but it doesn't make even good sales people immune.

And allow me to add, don't complain when I spread manure next to your house :)

Nor when everyone's dogs for 5 square miles consider your land community property.

I've got one I'll sell you here for about 85k.

It's a nice as hell condo, but the market just fell to the bottom. I'm going to end up taking a minimum of a 20k hit on it if I sell it. Renting it is a pain in the ass because of the HOA rules. I am going to get out of it one way or the other. It's time for a house.

Interesting defense of judicial elections from prominent law professor:

Balkinization

you're back to the personal choice to be poor argument. my point is doctors and lawyers didn't build the hoover dam. the problem with ayn rand island is that they have 11,000 ft skyscrapers and no toilets. that work's for the bromide and there is no bromide when everyone's an architect.

we're all in this together. you dig? (see what i did there?)

meh, unfocused anger. i apologize for hijacking.

I see what you did and I laugh at it.

It's the real world.

And one man's poor is another man's "live by my own rules" lifestyle.

Why is hard to understand that some people prefer to live a simple life where they only have to "do what my asshole boss tells me to do" periodically and can spend the rest of their time doing what they please. It's really quite a liberating lifestyle if that's your thing.

Or are you referring to the 10's of millions of oppressed workaholic geniuses who are forced into manual labor jobs but if just given the chance and the resources could cure cancer, create self-renewing energies, etc?

I would think on that island, people who could install toilets would be the millionaires.

I didn't have time to elaborate last night and was coming on this morning to say exactly this. The free market is going to set the tone for everything. If all of the ditch diggers that worked yesterday got different jobs this morning, the price of digging a ditch in the US would go up tomorrow. As a ditch digging owner, I'd have to pay more to get the worker and I would then pass that cost on to whoever I was digging the ditch for.

That assumes a perfect market where everyone who used to be a ditch digger can get other employment. When people can't get work the forces pushing down wages will just mean new ditch diggers will work for less than the old ones or they'll starve.

The question is should we encourage a system where income distribution is so heavily weighted to those that have or should their be some forces pushing wages up to balance out downward forces?

wow, did i nail the ayn rand comment or what? we all worship at different altars, man. if darwinian economics give you a rubbery one, far be it from me to call it silly.

but let's talk some big picture philosophical shit. why are we here?

survive, procreate, ensure the survival of your offspring.

we've got 1 and 2 nailed but it's that last one that gives us trouble. why? because capitalism (particularly free market capitalism) requires infinite growth and we live on a finite planet. as emerging countries industrialize the competition for resources is going to end, well, we all know how it's going to end.

what do this have to do with ditch diggers? well in fantasyland (population: 1) we're building so many bridges to the future that any man capable with a hammer (or sickle. ha!) is in high demand. and every decision is based on 1 principle, is this good for tomorrow's citizens?

i don't know if it's capitalism. idk if it's socialism. but what it's not is the system we have now.

but hey, you want your free market, you want a system that rewards the quick and the cunning? a system that further rewards men with the high ground? you'll probably get it. and i'll help you drill the holes in the hull cuz this baby is goin down.

Then the previous ditch diggers would not leave their previous jobs.

Supply and demand works for most products as well as the labor force.

If you want to make 6 figures, learn how to weld, then move to Ft. McMurray Canada. Welders up there are making over $100,000 a year, and they can't get enough of them. Heck, you want a comfortable living, learn how to weld. The average age of welders is around 55 years old and getting older. You can make good money doing it. Not only that, if you're good you can work in construction or find a good job shop to work. The prices for good welders is high because the supply is so low.

Your fantasyland is still going to have an elite level of people that decides what is good for tomorrow's citizens, which jobs are valuable, and where those bridges should go. And those people are, unfortunately, still going to be human (well, I guess not necessarily, since it is fantasyland.)

The free market is not "fair" and needs to be reigned in somewhat, of course -but at least it's a neutral, non-human, non-corrupt, non-power and wealth hungry force. It just is, like gravity. Human interaction with that force can make it something devastatingly horrible, or something that propels civilization forward. But "free markets" and "capitalism" are not boogeymen. They're not any kind of men.

A system that rewards the quick and the cunning? Of course. I want that without question. Why is that a bad thing?

This baby is going down? Really? I mean, we've went through a great depression, multiple wars, multiple recessions and things have always bounced back. No economic system is or will be perfect. You act as though your place in this country is locked in place like we are in a caste system.

We will evolve and we will recover. And if we don't, someone else will take us over and we'll evolve that way. Either way, there will always be rewards for men with high ground. Either with currency or power or both, no system will prevent someone from doing that.

Throw 25 strangers together in a crisis situation, someone will grab the power for the group. If 2 someones want power, there will be a war between the factions and one will still rule. This idea that there is a system that's going to prevent that is nothing more than fanciful fiction.

I would, but I'm right in the middle of dancing with the stars.

The problem with guaranteeing some level of income / standard of living is you remove the incentive to actually try harder or even really work much at all. Then you get the old Soviet Union and the issues they are STILL trying to recover from.

Here you at least get rewarded for trying harder and can still move your way up the chain if you really want to.

You, and any other able minded/bodied person, can do all 3 today. You just choose to define these the way you want them to exist vs. the way they actually exist.

I know the mere knowledge that anybody else in this world gets to enjoy things that you do not is simply outrageous but ask yourself this...are you willing to do what the wealthy do day in and day out? Don't reference the spoiled rich kid who doesn't work and simply drives dad's Ferrari as the example...the kid doesnt earn wealth, the dad does. Would you like to live the life of his dad? Do you know what that life actually is or are you assuming its all golfing, drinking, and yelling at the little people to work harder?

I would submit that you haven't any idea what that person does, what they think about at 11:45pm on a typical Saturday, nor does the concept of some people simply not wanting that lifestyle to achieve that wealth level even factor into your equation. You are submitting that "Billy" over there, despite the fact that he doesnt like to pick up the shovel and help dig, should be equally rewarded as you, me, and the rest of the people digging. And if I should want to dig faster...you would have a problem with me being rewarded for it. Sounds like I've heard that argument before as well.

Dola,

And just to add. I'm not necessarily against some level of regulation in regards to excessive inequality of wage, in principle. Society exists only so long as the masses do not rise up & decide to change it. But the idea that Warren Buffet & a car detailer have some comparable value to society is utter nonsense.

Setting aside Warren Buffet, I often wonder, though, if some of the highest income earners actually do earn far more than they "deserve". Someone mentioned before that a welder's wages are set by supply-and-demand. Even so, are we sure we don't have distorted market for certain jobs-especially in more "knowledge-based" roles were it's almost impossible to actually measure value-added?

Take your average CEO, for instance. His wages are determined by a board made up people that are largely executives at other companies. They all have an incentive to keep his wages artificially high to prove to their own boards that they "deserve" the money they are making*. One might argue that, in perfect market, shareholders will police this and prevent board members from putting their own interests ahead of the firm. But it's well established you can't align interests perfectly-collective action and agency problems will clearly prevent effective monitoring.

* When the SEC instituted rules that required disclosure of executive compensation, they thought they'd shame executives and stamp out excessive contracts. Instead, the opposite happened. CEOs at companies just used each other's salaries to push their own higher.

As a sidenote, I also wonder about other distortionary effects this has on the corporate world. I don't know enough about enough company's compensation policies to speak authoritatively, but it seems like we've designed compensation systems that vastly overvalue management.

Genuine question: Are there drug companies, for instance, where the best scientists make more than the CEO? If not, wouldn't it make more sense to establish a compensation system that encouraged that rather than one which encouraged your best scientists to become managers, make more, but be in a less effective role.

Related to this, does sports provide a better organization model? Star players make much more the managers. Should this also be the norm in the corporate world?

i've seen that movie. the guy goes around killing people with a cattle gun.

shrug, idk. i respect everyone's civility itt and hope for the best. or the worst. whichever comes first.

Being a CEO has a different skillset than that of a chemist. The CEO is in charge of making sure the chemists invention is produced (including setting aside resources to make production possible), packaging and marketing the invention (and the resources for that), price point, market testing, distribution and sales.

Obviously, I'm talking about a good CEO. There are garbage ones out there. (thankfully I like mine) But a good CEO has to be monitoring all of that.

That said, the chemist who created something amazing does have leverage in the corporate world. He can sell his services to the highest bidder. He's going to make incredible coin for doing what he did. (and of course the odd are even that great chemist had a ton of help creating the invention, he's going to get the credit for it anyway)

I think you're right about all that. Management is definitely overvalued (depending on the industry, but I think that's generally true.) But how is that situation resolved? Should our power elite (the government) make that determination for everyone, and plug that factor "management is worth X" into a free market and let market forces work around that? Or should the government merely try to promote and facilitate a free market where, if our theory about overvalued management is true - companies that overvalue management fail, and companies that value it properly will succeed? (Or should the government do "C" - use taxpayer money to ensure that the corporations who overvalue management, and who would otherwise fail, continue to thrive and form the basis of our economy?)

The problem we have is that we have nothing resembling a free market. I can't buy drugs from Canada, I can't shop from multiple ISPs, and my business doesn't have the luxury of getting a huge interest free loan anytime I fall too far in debt.

What we have now is a system where certain companies and people have the rules shifted in their favor while the others have them shifted against them. Corporate welfare masqueraded as capitalism.

In the end however, those making the decisions are (presumably) legally authorized to do so. It is, in effect, "their money" at least insofar as they act as proxies for the shareholders.

The one thing that's certain is that it is NOT the government's money, nor should the government be involved in telling them how to spend it.

Oh, certainly I agree there are good CEOs. But it seems to me it's more difficult to evaluate the CEO than it is the chemist. Combined with the problems about corporate law mentioned above, perhaps the relative wages of these two positions are not really being determined by a free market.

The funny thing is - people can disagree about how "free" a "free market" should be, and there's a lot of reasonable debate there, but I think that it's important to remember that our current government-inspired version of a "free market" goes completely outside the scope of that entire debate. Nobody wants what we have. When someone promotes the virtues of a free market - they certainly aren't using our country as an example, because as you said, we don't have it here.

Our government's intervention into the "free market" tends to do the very things that anti-capitalism folks warn against. (the well-connected having more power, etc.) That's what happens when your government "regulations" have to be approved by lobbyists and corporations. I'll never understand how some kind so blindly trust the government side of our joint-overlords and think the corporate side is so evil. They're all evil, (as far as all people are evil, they're not any more evil than us, we just don't have the power). Free markets, capitalism, other ideas - those are the only white hats here.

Corporate CEOs generally hire compensation consultants that, shockingly, say the CEO should be paid more.

Changing corporate compensation would be a big help. Put a number of workers on the board. Don't allow cross contamination of boards. Allow shareholders an up or down vote on compensation or at least a recall like procedure. Tax all forms of compensation equally.

In terms of worth to society, the problem is a lot of high salary earners don't provide any worth to society. The whole invention of mass trading through computers is just a way to steal a millions of pennies at a time. It makes the companies rich, but if anything it's a negative for society.

This might sort of address molson's point, too, but is it really fair to say the government should have no involvement?

Corporations are just a fictional entity that exist only because the government recognizes them. We view them as good policy because they help lower transaction costs (as opposed to having to contract for everything) and encourage risk-taking (thanks to limited liability). To the extent they're legally authorized to do anything, it's only because of laws governing corporations that courts and legislatures have developed.

Given that, is it invalid to suggest the government should step in when the laws governing corporations are distorting markets (such as the one for CEO pay)? If agency costs exist, we should adjust the laws to try to fix them (assuming the added monitoring costs don't away them, presumably).

Government has to be involved (my option "b" above involves plenty of government involvement). The distinction I'd make is that government should promote fair market forces and minimize human evil (which would take a ton of involvement, but its a necessary evil), rather than become a player itself and deciding for everyone what's the appropriate way is to do business, or attempting to impose equality at the expense of personal freedom.

One small part of that is treating financial criminals like actual criminals.

Why? What aptitude for that role have they displayed?


Generally speaking, there's something stopping shareholders from electing directors who back that now? I mean, dependent upon the corporate charter & such. And what's stopping investors from simply avoiding companies who don't have policies that match their desires? This is akin to buying a house subject to HOA policies & then whining about them even though you knew the rules before you bought the house. Don't like 'em, then don't buy.

But isn't this is clearly a situation where "fair market forces" aren't present because of collective action problems and agency costs?

As little as fucking possible. And certainly none over internal matters such as compensation. If the model is sustainable the company will succeed, if it isn't then the company will fail. (or at least it should if a collective group of ding-dongs doesn't bail them out)