Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
Chairman and CEO of Verizon Communications
Salary US$18.2 million (2014)
or clayton Kershaw, 28, will earn $32 million in salary for the 2016 MLB season and an additional $800,000 through off-field endorsement deals with companies like Under Armour (UA) and
And Some guys have an issue with what the POTUS gets paid during and out of office or their speaking fees
with all the responsibilities that come with the Job what a lack of perspective
|
You are applying relativism to unlike things. This gives you an avenue to "interpret" incorrectly. Same as what happens on the Supreme Court when Justices create an incongruous or false perspective and go off on their versions of making it right.
The private sector and the public sector differ in purpose and in method of compensation, just to mention one of the problems in comparing them.
The private sector, in matters of economy, strives to get a maximum monetary return for its efforts and production. This is dependent on market forces. And is most efficiently and justifiably achieved in a free market. Economically, the private sector's purpose is, largely, self-aggrandizement. And that is dependent on its ability to satisfactorily produce goods and services to the public. The interchange between the private sector and the public is, when done best, free.
The public sector, in matters of economy, and in a free society, strives to produce the maximum service for the least expenditure.
In private sector economy, income disparity is harmful only if it diminishes the ability of getting the maximum return. The high achievers, those who the public are satisfied to pay what it costs to buy their stuff, get the most, but will make it more difficult for themselves if they demand more than the market will bear.
In public sector economy, income disparity between public servants and public payers creates animosity and the appearance of corruption and despotism. This is especially so when the government becomes more dictatorial and there is less attention to what the "market," in terms of tax payers ability to pay, will bear.
The freer the market, the greater the possibility there is to increase the number of private sector entrepreneurs and employees. And the greater the possibility for satisfaction between buyer and seller.
The more regulated and closed the market, the more contracted is the possibility for number of businesses, ergo number of employees. But the greater the possibility for fewer and larger corporations whose potential competition is eliminated by government regulation. The more the market is regulated, the more fascistic becomes the relation between the public and private sectors.
And the more fascistic government becomes, the more it coerces, the more it shrinks the private sector, the more it takes, without consent, from the private sector to grow its own size and scope, and the more apparent becomes the lack of justification for income inequality in private and public sector economy in relation to the lesser quality and diversity that is produced.
The private sector must satisfy its customers or perish. It competes and, in a sense, goes begging for the public's money.
The public sector, especially the more despotic or fascistic it becomes, simply confiscates the publics money. The quid pro quo between buyer and seller in a free private sector does not exist between government and citizen. So the public tends to have issues with government salaries, as well as they do for corporate CEO's who get humongous compensation. And the public is especially angered when such politicians and corporate heads get there big money even if they fail.
But the dirty little secret is that the reason politicians can line their pockets with money (and big CEO's can excessively do so) is that, beyond taxation, the politicos get it from the gigantic corporations they help to create with competition busting regulations. And the Corporations are allowed the uncompetitive advantage given them by the politicos. They work hand in hand. Fascism. And the public is hoodwinked into believing that big government is fighting big business. They are buddies. One HYUGE public/private corporation.
he was probably being sarcastic )... would somehow think doing so could change the cozy relationship unless they believe if government gets big enough it could eventually run or at least regulate through stringent governmental control(fascism) all of these corrupt, bothersome businesses itself, making everything nice and fair for everyone....
Hybrid Mode
