birdog1960 Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) Drucker's talking about wages? Or is he talking about compensation? Why don't you figure out what you actually want to discuss, and get back to us... he's talking about both. the avg worker gets wages (and rarely much else), the ceo's get extras. so what? it's not particularly difficult or impressive to be opaque. you understand the argument. you disagree. then argue back. Didn't we discuss it here before in how Drucker's theory is misapplied by people who don't understand the concepts? the business week synopsis is pretty straightforward. are you sayoing that you understand the concepts better than the author and editors there? Edited January 27, 2014 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) well that was difficult. search peter drucker wage ratio and this looked like a source among many of the earliy ones that ya'll might respect http://www.businessw...inancial-advice Drucker himself conceded that compensation formulas are inherently difficult to develop. "I would be the last person to claim that a 'fair,' let alone a 'scientific,' system can be devised," he wrote. Yet at the same time, he never gave up on the 20-to-1 rule for CEOs, touting it as the right thing for the good of the organization, as well as for the general health of society. Like I asked, do you or Drucker have any support whatsoever for these numbers? I looked it up last time and found nothing to back his opinion so I asked again. Apparently, you didn't even read the article you posted else you might have noticed the passage above. So its not fair or scientific but we must do it for the sake of society?!?! Sign me up! Edited January 27, 2014 by Jauronimo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 Like I asked, do you or Drucker have any support whatsoever for these numbers? I looked it up last time and found nothing to back his opinion so I asked again. Apparently, you didn't even read the article you posted else you might have noticed the passage above. So its not fair or scientific but we must do it for the sake of society?!?! Sign me up! the argument is based on appeal to authority. it's not fallacious if attributed to a recognized authority in the area, which drucker clearly is. it's not practically possible to test his theory in the real world without a law such as proposed in switzerland passing. the very persistence of his idea in serious discussion in prominent publications on the subject supports it's relevance and validity as a serious concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 the argument is based on appeal to authority. it's not fallacious if attributed to a recognized authority in the area, which drucker clearly is. it's not practically possible to test his theory in the real world without a law such as proposed in switzerland passing. the very persistence of his idea in serious discussion in prominent publications on the subject supports it's relevance and validity as a serious concept. What if the recognized authority isn't all that recognized and states very clearly that his theory is pretty arbitrary? Whether or not a few Swiss think its should be law is irrelevant. Has the very persistence of the idea that women and blacks are second class citizens demonstrated the validity and seriousness of this concept? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 What if the recognized authority isn't all that recognized and states very clearly that his theory is pretty arbitrary? Whether or not a few Swiss think its should be law is irrelevant. Has the very persistence of the idea that women and blacks are second class citizens demonstrated the validity and seriousness of this concept? the difference being that no serious publication concerned with gender or race and no currently recognized expert in the field would propose such ridiculous arguments....but you apparently would, presumably in desperation.I don't take wawy "pretty arbitrary" form what drucker said about the concept. he flet it was true for a very long time. he seemed pretty convinced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 the difference being that no serious publication concerned with gender or race and no currently recognized expert in the field would propose such ridiculous arguments....but you apparently would, presumably in desperation.I don't take wawy "pretty arbitrary" form what drucker said about the concept. he flet it was true for a very long time. he seemed pretty convinced. Had a look at the political scene in Greece lately? Neo-fascism is making a comeback and its not just limited to the Balkans. Its also worth noting that no currently recognized expert believes in legislation which caps wages, not even Drucker. Seeing as you conflate corporate governance with legislation and wage with compensation, its not surprising that your takeaways and arguments are only good for the amusement of PPP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 the business week synopsis is pretty straightforward. are you sayoing that you understand the concepts better than the author and editors there? Without hesitation, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 Without hesitation, yes. maybe you should be applying for a job? i would think the chief editor at bloomberg does pretty well. Had a look at the political scene in Greece lately? Neo-fascism is making a comeback and its not just limited to the Balkans. Its also worth noting that no currently recognized expert believes in legislation which caps wages, not even Drucker. Seeing as you conflate corporate governance with legislation and wage with compensation, its not surprising that your takeaways and arguments are only good for the amusement of PPP. so the neofacists are recognized experts in what exactly. are you appealing to their authority? maybe you should be applying for a job? i would think the chief editor at bloomberg does pretty well. so the neofacists are recognized experts in what exactly? are you appealing to their authority? and the arguments were good enough for bloomberg readers but only for amusement of ppp readers. i think there's something implicit there but i won't venture a guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 so the neofacists are recognized experts in what exactly. are you appealing to their authority? But if so many Greeks think neo-fascism is right, shouldn't it be taken seriously? Golden Dawn has been around for a long time and has always believed that foreigners are bad. Granted there's no science or fairness to support their belief system but it must be so. Right? Because you're a special kind of nitwit, I'll drop the sarcasm and declare that in no way do I support Golden Dawn or neo-facsists or recognize them as experts anymore than I recognize Drucker as an expert in economics. Unlike you, I don't choose authority so carelessly and appeal to it so poorly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 maybe you should be applying for a job? i would think the chief editor at bloomberg does pretty well. Why would I want that job? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 Why would I want that job? Because clearly right now only he has a resectable job and the rest of us work at Mcdonalds/Walmart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) But if so many Greeks think neo-fascism is right, shouldn't it be taken seriously? Golden Dawn has been around for a long time and has always believed that foreigners are bad. Granted there's no science or fairness to support their belief system but it must be so. Right? Because you're a special kind of nitwit, I'll drop the sarcasm and declare that in no way do I support Golden Dawn or neo-facsists or recognize them as experts anymore than I recognize Drucker as an expert in economics. Unlike you, I don't choose authority so carelessly and appeal to it so poorly. well, you might rightly not recognize drucker as an expert in economics sinnce his field of expertise would more accurately be described as management. from wiki "peter drucker was an austrian born american management consultant, educator and author, whose writing contributed to the philisophical and practical foundation of the modern business corporation." i hesitate to provide this link http://hbr.org/authors/drucker since linking him to harvard in any way might lower his prestige in your estimation, but that's kinda the point isn't it? that most of the rest of the world considers him an authority is somehow irrelevant. you deem it appropriate to compare golden dawn to him as an authority on anything. is that really the best you've got? Edited January 27, 2014 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) So, he's a legitimate source of authority, unlike an illegitimate source of authority, which would only then be subject to an "appeal to authority" fallacy critique (even though that's not how logical fallacy works), even though his arbitrary assertions can't be tested and therefore falsified, and even though he's not a recognizable expect in the field in which you're claiming he has authority? Have I missed anything? Edited January 27, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 well, you might rightly not recognize drucker as an expert in economics sinnce his field of expertise would more accurately be described as management. from wiki "peter drucker was an austrian born american management consultant, educator and author, whose writing contributed to the philisophical and practical foundation of the modern business corporation." i hesitate to provide this link http://hbr.org/authors/drucker since linking him to harvard in any way might lower his prestige in your estimation, but that's kinda the point isn't it? that most of the rest of the world considers him an authority is somehow irrelevant. you deem it appropriate to compare golden dawn to him as an authority on anything. is that really the best you've got? You cite Drucker, as an "expert" on matters pertaining to income inequality and the social effects thereof, which is false. He may be an expert on corporate structure, but that has little to do with the topic at hand. He has opinions about corporate governance and CEO comp relative to grunt comp which he admits are not scientific and aren't demonstrably fair. You, misapply his opinions regarding CEO compensation, suggest this should be a function of the legislative branch not a company's board of directors. You then supported this nonsense with fringe Swiss politics, a mention of Drucker in business week, and that Drucker believed CEO pay shouldn't exceed some arbitrary multiple, and believed so for a "long time". I brought up Golden Dawn because you asked me to. They have horrible, arbitrary politics. They get votes. They've been covered by major periodicals. See whats wrong with making ****ty arguments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 You cite Drucker, as an "expert" on matters pertaining to income inequality and the social effects thereof, which is false. He may be an expert on corporate structure, but that has little to do with the topic at hand. He has opinions about corporate governance and CEO comp relative to grunt comp which he admits are not scientific and aren't demonstrably fair. You, misapply his opinions regarding CEO compensation, suggest this should be a function of the legislative branch not a company's board of directors. You then supported this nonsense with fringe Swiss politics, a mention of Drucker in business week, and that Drucker believed CEO pay shouldn't exceed some arbitrary multiple, and believed so for a "long time". I brought up Golden Dawn because you asked me to. They have horrible, arbitrary politics. They get votes. They've been covered by major periodicals. See whats wrong with making ****ty arguments? ceo compensation isn't within the scope of the study of management and business or of a man credited with contributing to the foundation of the modern business corporation. that's the entirety of your argument against appealling to his authority. and it's incredibly weak and silly on its face. do you contend that ceo compensation is never a subject of study in the finest business schools in the world from which many of the very ceo's we are discussing graduated? how bout you appeal to a similarly distinguished authority or "scientific" citation that supports your contention that his opinion is incorrect? that would seem the more convincing counter argument. i didn't say what mechanism should be invoked in order to produce the desired state. the "fringe" group garnered 40% of the vote on the issue if i recall correctly. and the fact that it's not fringe thinking but rather a mainstream opinion is an integral part of the argument. there are hundreds of references to the search "drucker wage ratio". more than a few folks have placed some value in his opinion on the matter even if only to refute it. the fact that some find it necessary to do so speaks to its relevance. that you choose not to concede those points yet refuse to disprove them is clear evidence of the weakness of your argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 I'm still confused. Have we shifted now from an appeal to an authority (whose argument is misunderstood, and therefor poorly utilized relative to this thread), to an appeal to popularity fallacy which attempts to legitimize the appeal to misplaced authority? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 You mean hard workers like George Bush or Paris Hilton?? Paris Hilton was getting banged by Brian Urlacher a few years ago. Why don't you try that and report back as to how hard a piece of work that is? George Bush (both of them) as far as I can tell earned all of their income and paid their fair share of taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 I'm still confused. Have we shifted now from an appeal to an authority (whose argument is misunderstood, and therefor poorly utilized relative to this thread), to an appeal to popularity fallacy which attempts to legitimize the appeal to misplaced authority? Take your pick. Now CEO pay is taught in business schools, so we should pass laws and stuff like the Swiss. ceo compensation isn't within the scope of the study of management and business or of a man credited with contributing to the foundation of the modern business corporation. that's the entirety of your argument against appealling to his authority. and it's incredibly weak and silly on its face. do you contend that ceo compensation is never a subject of study in the finest business schools in the world from which many of the very ceo's we are discussing graduated? how bout you appeal to a similarly distinguished authority or "scientific" citation that supports your contention that his opinion is incorrect? that would seem the more convincing counter argument. i didn't say what mechanism should be invoked in order to produce the desired state. the "fringe" group garnered 40% of the vote on the issue if i recall correctly. and the fact that it's not fringe thinking but rather a mainstream opinion is an integral part of the argument. there are hundreds of references to the search "drucker wage ratio". more than a few folks have placed some value in his opinion on the matter even if only to refute it. the fact that some find it necessary to do so speaks to its relevance. that you choose not to concede those points yet refuse to disprove them is clear evidence of the weakness of your argument. You want me to cite an authority which explains how you've misapplied Drucker's wage ratio? Can I cite my own authority as someone who has observed your stupidity for years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 ceo compensation isn't within the scope of the study of management and business or of a man credited with contributing to the foundation of the modern business corporation. that's the entirety of your argument against appealling to his authority. and it's incredibly weak and silly on its face. do you contend that ceo compensation is never a subject of study in the finest business schools in the world from which many of the very ceo's we are discussing graduated? how bout you appeal to a similarly distinguished authority or "scientific" citation that supports your contention that his opinion is incorrect? that would seem the more convincing counter argument. i didn't say what mechanism should be invoked in order to produce the desired state. the "fringe" group garnered 40% of the vote on the issue if i recall correctly. and the fact that it's not fringe thinking but rather a mainstream opinion is an integral part of the argument. there are hundreds of references to the search "drucker wage ratio". more than a few folks have placed some value in his opinion on the matter even if only to refute it. the fact that some find it necessary to do so speaks to its relevance. that you choose not to concede those points yet refuse to disprove them is clear evidence of the weakness of your argument. We're talking about compensation and not wages now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) We're talking about compensation and not wages now? perhaps you have knowledge of many things in a cliff clavin sort of way. but you have a very small mind. Edited January 28, 2014 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts