By the way, there is less than zero evidence that CEO salary correlates with company performance. When the company does well CEO compensation increases, and when the company does poorly CEO compensation also rises. That’s just market forces at work. After all if you can afford to pay top lawyers to negotiate your contract then you deserve what you get. It’s almost too obvious.

You need to distinguish between an “argument” and an “example” used in an argument. Arguments are often defended by the use of extreme examples. For most people (you excluded) this helps the reader see a contrast more clearly . I would be interested to hear what you think of Bradley’s position vs. Crowley’s position. That would be a useful comment. However, using words like “ridiculous”, “little common sense” don’t do a lot to identify the weaknesses of an opponents argument.

WTF!

Robert, What a completely ridiculous argument. Why are you attempting to defend such an indefenible example with such inane thinking as this. The ‘average Joe’ does not have an an employment contract with huge bonuses that get paid to him even if he quits. The average Joe is compensated hourly, or salaried weekly, and only earns based on the time spent on the job. The ‘average Joe’ walks away with nothing and in some States, if they have quit, they don’t even get unemployment insurance, especially after only a few months.

You claim Crowley lack precious little knowledge of economics, but sadly Robert, you lack precious little common sense. God Lord, man, it’s ridiculous arguments like this that make Liberals like Robert appear that they know what they’re talking about.