Cynical Christian has a post about Huckappeal. But he misses (or at least doesn't elaborate upon) a key point:

What grabbed me were some of Carter's defenses of Mike Huckabee as the real full-spectrum conservative in the race.

A prime example of how "economic conservatives" are out of touch with the Reagan conservatives is the issue of executive compensation for poorly managed companies. On CNBC Governor Mike Huckabee expressed his disgust for corporate boards that award CEOs with $200 million bonuses while the workers are taking 40% pay cuts. As the Governor made clear he didn’t think the federal government should take action. His only point was merely that as a conservative he would use the bully pulpit to speak out against such outrageous behavior.

I think that one thing you have to assume about political candidates is that if that say something is disgusting, they're liable to do something about it. If you're not going to judge what a president will do based on what he says, then stop making me listen to those flippin' state of the union addresses every year. And if a politician tries--or threatens--to mess with how people get paid in the private sector, you can no longer call that politician conservative.

While I agree that that is not a conservative position, it's also misleading. There is a slippery implication here that is extremely non-conservative (or libertarian).

If there really were a corporate governance problem that was resulting in CEOs regularly being overpaid for poor performance, then it might in fact be worthwhile to look into it and see if the government was interfering somehow with the market to allow this to happen (that is, after all, the usual reason for apparent "market failures"). But this isn't even obviously a market failure. Note the insidious assumption: to Huckabee (and Carter), the problem is "corporate boards that award CEOs with $200 million bonuses while the workers are taking 40% pay cuts."

The implication here is that if a company is giving workers 40% pay cuts, it is failing at its job. But it could be that the workers had been overpaid for years, and that the only way to make the company successful at its real purpose (returning value to the shareholders), is to reduce their pay. The assumption is that the purpose of a corporation is not to reward its owners (a base foundation of capitalism), but to provide well-paid jobs for employees. Now one can argue (though not convincingly, at least to me) that that should be the purpose of a corporation, but to do so is one of the farthest things from economic conservatism. It's a ludicrous quote to defend the notion that Huckabee is a conservative. That is classical "liberal" (i.e., non-liberal "progressive") dogma. Democrats say those sorts of things, not Republicans trying to pass as conservative.

Yes, well put.

Obama's positions on business issues seem to be as bad as or worse than Huckabee's. Come to think of it, all of the Democratic candidates have bad positions on these issues.

The implication here is that if a company is giving workers 40% pay cuts, it is failing at its job

Not quite. At worst, the implication is that if the company simultaneously cuts the worker's wages and gives a 200 million dollar bonus to the CEO, it is failing at its job. Is giving a 200 million dollar bonus (as opposed to a mere 2 million or 20 milion dollar bonus) in the shareholders' interest? Even if it is, Huckabee is merely calling it disgusting. An obligation can be successfully met in a disgusting manner.

What company is this that the Huckster is talking about? Or is this theoretical?

"I'm starting to think that conservative Christian support for Huckabee is based on something other than the issues."

Starting to think? Seems a bit slow to me.

Conservatives are often considered hard hearted because of their principles. The fact is, Employers screw their employees and unions screw everybody.

In principle, employees should demand a decent salary and be willing to go somewhere else if an employer is unwilling or able to step up. That theory doesn't always work in practice.

Huckabee as president would be a disaster, but he seems to resonate with people that would rather have their ears tickled than face the hard truth.

I used to ask for a $4k raise every January and get it, even though I could not afford to lose my job. Then my fellow employees went to the boss with a collective proprosal. That was the year I didn't get a raise. I found another job with somebody that knew of my work (otherwise I am not marketable for health reasons) and my boss offered me $10k if I didn't leave, but I'd committed to the new job. It lasted a year, then I went back to work for my old boss ...and never got a raise again for the remaining years I worked.

So were they underpaying me that $10k? No, they had been underpaying me more than that each year for all the years I'd worked for them. My poor health prevented me from finding another job.

I collect disability now, and I hate it. I truly wish the we would dismantle the entire government social agenda, because I believe it's destructive to us individually.

So I live a paradox. I fear for my personal future. I fear for this countries future. The choices we make today will have results.

Fred Thompson is the only presidential candidate of the whole bunch that I endorse and I'm hoping for a miracle in SC or at the convention.

I believe he shares many of my principles. Which may not do me much good, but I know would help this country.

While I loathe Huckabee for many reasons too long to discuss here, he is raising an interesting point. In a recent Economist, there was an article titled Mao and the art of management. Quite a few other observers have noted similar things about today's management culture. No, not all companies or all managers. But it is a significant problem. Telling workers if they don't like it, leave, has quite a few limitations. Switching jobs -- and perhaps where you live -- can be difficult. It's not like you are living in a town with dozens of similar businesses where similar skill sets are required. It's not like companies don't have barriers to entrance. Ken Anthony's story helps illustrate this problem.

I've learned recently that 40% of people in their fifties lose their jobs -- and most never recover. Do they lose their jobs because they are no longer worth keeping on? Or is it because incompetents who have yessed their way into management positions want to get rid of people who know how bad their managerial skills are? Or is it something else?

This is a complex question well worth investigating. Government action might not be the best approach. I suspect that it might not be myself. But some government action -- or stopping certain government actions -- might be a key part of addressing this problem.

I think there is a problem with CEO pay at large companies - but the government has no business getting involved. From a corporate governance standpoint, the problem is that CEOs are typically the president of the board and get to select most of the board members. Thus, to a large extent, they are letting in people that will give them more money.

That said, the real problem is human nature - and the solution is probably to come up with something that uses human nature against itself, like capitalism. The real problem is that money does not have linear value for people. Your first $10K of income is far more important than your second $10K. Your first million is worth far more than your second. Once you get a $billions, that second $billion really gives you zero additional benefit - so if someone wants to motivate you, they have to pay you a LOT more.

To put this in perspective, we will all be facing this problem soon. Pay is going up faster than inflation, on average. Eventually, almost everyone will be millionaires (in todays dollars). At that point, I believe most people will leave the work force. Progress will effectively stop. You can already see this in some countries, where oil money os something else has had this effect.

How do you motivate people that realistically have everything they want?

I used to get worked up about high CEO pay, wondering how the market could possibly justify it. Let alone how it could be compatible with a decent respect for humanity.

Turns out there's a very rational explanation. (Whether being rational makes it okay is another matter.)

By paying the CEO $$gadzillions, you don't have to pay all the middle managers $$more gadzillions. Part of their compensation is the hope of getting their greasy finger in that brass ring someday.

When you realize this, CEO pay makes a lot more sense. No, the CEO isn't worth that much. But overpaying him lets you pay everyone bucking for his job that much less, which is a win on balance, bottom-line-wise.

Do the numbers really work out there Kent? It would be interesting to run the numbers. It would also be interesting to calculate the odds that any given manager would become CEO.

"It would also be interesting to calculate the odds that any given manager would become CEO."

What if you calculated the odds of them becoming "a" CEO rather than "the" CEO. It seems like that might make a difference to the numbers.

It's not so much that the middle managers hope to become the CEO of the company they are in but that they hope to become a CEO in some company and want to be able to demonstrate management skills on a resume toward that goal.

The only problem with high CEO pay is envy that causes unwise attempts to regulate. The only effective way to reduce net average CEO compensation at the top 1000 firms is to limit firm size.

The pay issue is only one aspect of the problem. You can really shift a culture by moving from a relatively flat hierarchy with strong limits on what management can do to a very steep hierarchy where the CEO is treated as an Imperial Potentate. Do I care whether the CEO is paid $1 million/year or $1 billion/year? Not really. But I do want the respect of the people around and immediately above me as well as the freedom to partake of all that life can offer. 80 hour work weeks drastically affect that freedom. So do abusive managers who got where they did by tolerating abuse from those even higher in the hierarchy rather than showing genuine leadership ability.

I completely agree that envy is the problem. If you believe in capitalism (which only exists when barriers to competition are low) then one company paying too much to its CEO should lose to another company that isn't. The idea that the best CEO's get the best pay has many historical counter examples.