Quoting the President on a recent speech:
"I want to be clear, we're not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that's fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you've made enough money."
I wonder... How much is too much? Is the amount different for different people or is there a standard? Who gets to decide when enough is enough - you, or someone else - like a regulator? If a regulator, what might be the unintended consequences if she guesses wrong? What are the implications for a regulator getting it wrong for all of us vs. some of us getting it wrong for ourselves?
For most of us there is likely a point at which that next dollar that we could earn wouldn't be as valuable relative to the effort we'd have to expend to get it. We have alternatives that become more attractive (reading more, spending more time with the family, taking a class at the community college, retiring, working for a non-profit). I am certain, however, that this is a dynamic, subjective concept: the point shifts quickly as our situation, needs, desires, and alternatives change from moment to moment.
Since we all face different situations and have different preferences, it would be surprising to me that one could objectively determine an amount that is "enough" for anyone. Many of us struggle with answering that question for ourselves.
What do you think?
I think that is a bizarre statement for the President of a (not to mention THE) capitalist country to make. He clearly doesn't understand capitalism or those who are driven to embrace the opportunities that it yields. Having worked with many successful individuals, what I have learned is most often times it's not about the money. Money is merely a vehicle to get from point A to point B and it is also a measurement of achievement. Not that there aren't plenty of other measurements, but money is certainly one. Anyone who feels they have hit the max of their opportunity and growth is likely to feel discouraged and unmotivated. So why on earth would you take that away? Instead I think efforts should be directed at teaching and encouraging people to use their money for good. I bet the people of the 9th ward in New Orleans are glad Brad Pitt has an excess of money, or people all over the world are thrilled that he and/or Oprah have so much money.
Let's not focus on holding people back but on lifting people up!
Posted by: Cheri Corrado | 02 May 2010 at 01:01 PM
Taking it a step further, think about the implications of this from the standpoint of an investor.
My 401K is made up of various investments, several of which are mutual funds holding small interests in the stock of many publicly traded firms. Let's call one of these firms "Company X", in which my investment is $50. Suppose Company X has a successful year and their stock price increases by 30%. Is this the certain point at which they've made enough money?
All I get is $15. Did I reach the point at which I made enough money?
Posted by: Todd | 06 May 2010 at 12:14 AM
I think that what your president meaned is that a CEO of a nearly bankrupt company or of a bailed out bank should not received hundreds millions of dollars as bonus if, at the same time, executive decide to decrease employees wages for the fate of the company.
sorry for my English, I am not English speaker
Posted by: maggy | 04 August 2010 at 08:21 AM
Thanks for the comment Maggy!
I get wrapped up in thinking about this subject. I'm going to divide the "should" get paid from the situation currently at hand.
On CEOs getting paid after taking bailouts:
There are a couple of factors that make this particular situation less straight forward in my mind.
- These CEOs have contracts. Is it okay for the government to violate (or void) a contract?
- The weird incentives surrounding a publicly traded company make it really tough (I think) to think long term and evaluate long term value contribution. I think the one thing that consumers can do is vote with their dollars. If you don't like the way a company does business, boycott.
In theory, people should get paid according to the value they create for society. So, if someone can create $100M for society, I certainly hope they get paid enough to keep producing value.
Posted by: Ann Zerkle | 04 August 2010 at 09:43 AM