That's like saying a coach plays basketball.

Having an impact on productivity doesn't mean they produce. I suppose a midwife or nurse has an impact on how successful & painless a birth is, it doesn't mean the nurse is giving birth.

"That's like saying a coach plays basketball. "

A coach certainly play a big role in winning games and championships.

"Having an impact on productivity doesn't mean they produce."

Ultimately this conversation is about *total economic output* - because remember we are talking about how much someone should be paid - in dollars. And ultimately that is what we are producing here - dollars. There is no point weaving baskets if no one is going to buy them. We make baskets so that we can convert our output into other goods and services and the medium of exchange is *dollars*. In a free market wages and salaries reflect the process of converting labor (whether physical or mental etc) into dollars. If your labor results in more dollars you are worth more in the market that someone whose individual contribution results in fewer dollars. Hence the reason CEOs get paid the big bucks. Some CEOs are admittedly overvalued but that is up to the shareholders to figure that out - ideally the market helps the shareholders figures this out (they might be able to higher a bet CEO).

typo.. they might be able to *hire a *better CEO

Let's wind this back a few steps...
Putin you talk about how wages and salaries should reflect "added value"? Is that correct?
I think we might have different definitions of value. To me "value" is subjective and ultimately whatever the market deems "value" to be.

If the CEO and basetball coach etc ( don't "add value" according to your definition). And assuming wages and salaries should be linked to whatever it is you define as "value" - how much much should a CEO be paid?

How do you decide who has "added the value" and how much?

No one is going to buy baskets if nobody produces them. CEOs don't make the baskets. Coaches don't play the game. The market does not reward economic output, the market "rewards" exchange-value which can be determined by whatever the hell the market wants. Salaries are determined by what companies get can away with paying people, not by their contributions to output. If we paid people according to output would be we paying migrant farm laborers sharecropper wages (sorry for my continual US references). Surely their productivity is a lot more than many other jobs (say compared to shockjob TV pundits or radio hosts), but the market doesn't reward them. CEO salary is completely disproportional to their so-called contribution to "economic output". There is no way you can justify a salary that is 400 times higher than the average worker. Just like there is no way (at least in the US) you can justify college coaches getting paid multi-millions while players who the fans pay money to go see and actually play the game don't get paid at all.

"A coach certainly play a big role in winning games and championships."

Not really. Even the legendary Ferguson couldn't beat Crystal Palace. Phil Jackson won all those championships because of MJ & Kobe Bryant, not because of the awesome strategery of the triangle offense. Look at Mike Brown's fortunes in Cleveland right after LeBron left. Did he somehow forget how to coach? Sorry again if you don't follow the NBA. Maybe a better example would be - did Australia's cricket fall by the wayside due to the strategy of Tim Nielsen or because a lot of the great talent retired?

Err. sorry, Mike Brown is a bad example. He got fired after LeBron left. But the point is - Cleveland's epic fall from being a title contender to losing franchise was due to LeBron leaving, not a change in coaching.

*before LeBron left, dammit

"How do you decide who has "added the value" and how much?"

I never said managers and non-productive labor should not get paid. I'm simply saying the justification for paying CEOs exorbitant salaries is baloney when you consider they don't actually add to the wealth of their own companies. CEOs should get paid the same level a government administrator does, since they effectively do the same job. There are easy ways to get a more just payscale based on people's actual contributions to 'economic output' as you put it. One way is to pay people based on a piece-rate, adjusted for difficulty of labor and value of product produced (measured in terms of the amount of capital/"surplus value" raised by the products of labor). The USSR paid people based on piece-rate. For services piece rate cannot be implemented so wages are purely transfer payments from the national wealth. Salaries for services should be based on labor intensity & level of skill required.

Can't say I couldn't agree more.

So Putin, since we have established someone w/ CEO experience, you still seem to be shying away from answering.

BTW, you really should stop with the sports references. Near to all have your own non-sports-experience written all over them. (I have to assume you don't play any.)

"Salaries for services should be based on labor intensity & level of skill required."
Not what the person being served thinks they're worth?
Different people have different interpretations of pain/intensity/skill. To think that you can make a one-size-fits-all rule about services' cost is foolish and has many MANY downsides.

Socialism is probably the best thing that's hit the market.

@Everyone

What system is better: communism or capitalism?
Well.
Ehm.
Let's see.

When the coast guard picks up a boat full of people somewhere between the US and Cuba, where is the boat going to: the US, or Cuba?
When the Berlin wall was torn down in 1989, were people from the East pouring into the West or were people from the West pouring into the East?
When you divide the number of Chinese by the number of Dutch, is the number of Dutch restaurants in China equal to the number of Chinese restaurants in China divided by this number?

Hmmm...

Well...

Hmm...

=Chinese restaurants in Holland.

http://www.ted.com/talks/pavan_sukhdev_what_s_the_price_of_nature.html

"So Putin, since we have established someone w/ CEO experience, you still seem to be shying away from answering."

I did answer. You haven't bothered to answer any counterpoints.

"BTW, you really should stop with the sports references. Near to all have your own non-sports-experience written all over them. (I have to assume you don't play any.)"

Another nasty personal attack from the person who whines about I'm so mean. I've played numerous sports. Thanks for not addressing any of the points as usual and going on some irrelevant tangent.

"Not what the person being served thinks they're worth?"

Since when did consumers set salaries?

" To think that you can make a one-size-fits-all rule about services' cost is foolish and has many MANY downsides."

Hasn't seemed to prevent corporate bosses from making these calculations.

"When the coast guard picks up a boat full of people somewhere between the US and Cuba, where is the boat going to: the US, or Cuba?
When the Berlin wall was torn down in 1989, were people from the East pouring into the West or were people from the West pouring into the East?"

Two cheap shots. Is that the best you can come up with? No mention of the continual famines that take place in the global capitalist marketplace. No mention of the fact that Cuba exports more doctors than anywhere else in the world. No mention of the high literacy rates in every single socialist country as compared to capitalist ones of equivalent development.

No instead we have to cite "boat people" while neglecting a number of factors which contributed to illegal immigration (which stopped a while ago now, why are you bringing this up? Because you have nothing else).

Since I already addressed the "boat people" canard a couple of times, I'll simply refer you to one of those threads.

http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?threadID=726569&page-thread=1

"When the Berlin wall was torn down in 1989, were people from the East pouring into the West or were people from the West pouring into the East?"

What a silly argument. The East's economy was completely dismantled by the annexation by Bonn and their currency was arbitrarily made worthless. Naturally they would "pour East". Also West Germany had been dangling all sorts of goodies to East Germans they wouldn't otherwise offer in order to induce defections.

Look at polls of East Germans today. How are they liking the fall of the Berlin Wall now? Many want it back. If capitalism is so great why do most post-Communist countries have high poll numbers in terms of nostalgia for the old days (when they actually had job security, good benefits and a sense of social solidarity).

*pour West*

I love how in your world view, the communists never make any mistakes. They shot their sportsmen full of steroids by the way, the East Germans, talking about how thecoach of a sports team doesn't add value to it.

East Germany's economy was a powerhouse btw. It had a highly developed IT sector and in terms of purchasing power income it was on par with West Germany. In 1988 its GDP per capita was a solid 12,500 (in 1988 dollars) and growth was around 2%. In 1984 its GDP was 164 billion and in 1988 it was 210 billion. Mighty Netherlands wasn't much higher than GDR in 1988. But in 1989 the rest of the socialist world collapsed, and exporting to Comecon was one of the main engines of GDR's economy.

Mistakes are made, but I'm not in the business of harping on them considering you anti-communists think history has ended and there's no alternative to your cruel market system.

hahaha yeah. that's why you see so many Trabant cars
on German highways and never any BMWs.

So, redhouse, looking at the OP, why not socialism?

define the difference

There are Trabant car clubs all over the world. You cite the lack of production of Trabants as if it had nothing to do with Comecon collapsing. Yes there was a fetish of flashiness because it was new and glamorous in the early 1990s. But Trabant owners still exist 20 years later.

Putin, i wish you a good night.

Socialism=the idea that the unwashed masses can't take care of their own lives as well as an isolated group of corrupt government bureaucrats can.

Socialism:
Why? Well, it's pretty much the best idea for a government ever!
Why Not? It doesn't actually work...
What Can We Do About It? Become Fascists.