Corporate CEOs in America Should Be Paid Less

1. Pro offers no arguments to dispute my framework, so it should be accepted wholestock. 2. Pro presents a policy proposal mid-debate. This is unfair to Con and destroys the quality of the debate- vote Con to enforce fairness. a. ACTUAL ABUSE: In my opening speech I claimed that con presenting a plan in the second speech is unfair because I do not know what to argue against and will waste my speech time. Pro spikes out of my arguments about primacy of freedom by making his plan "voluntary"-essentially meaning I wasted time in the first round making an argument that doesn't apply BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW PRO's PROPOSAL. b. If Pro is allowed to shift his advocacy mid-debate, he could just advocate a different proposal every round making him a moving target. You wouldn't vote for Con if I waited until the last round to state my advocacy. c. At the very least vote Con on conduct- however I should get full ballot. 3. Pro"s proposal is not real world. This is also unfair and makes this debate about a pointless fantasy world. a. There is no way every S&P 500 company would simultaneously agree to pay their CEOs based on the same program. Even if they did, it would only be a matter of time before one company wanted a new CEO desperately enough they would just break the agreement- that's how competition works. b. The plan is ILLEGAL in the U. S. , since it is wage-fixing and violates anti-trust laws. My first source details explicitly how companies that merely collect information on competitiors wages were found in violation- explicitly agreeing to a wage system across the S&P violates U. S. law [1]. c. If we are allowed to advocate fantasy world solutions then I advocate the following: CEO salaries should be RAISED and all CEOs should donate all money beyond 6ok to Oxfam and the Gates foundation. This plan feeds Africa and cures the continent of disease as hundreds of millions in aid stream in annually. d. Pro had tons of real world plans to choose from- the thread he links in his challenge is full of ones he himself suggested. 4. Pro's plan is a pay restructuring NOT a pay cut. Pro himself says "this kind of package may far outweigh total compensation currently received. " This is a double-bind: either Pro's plan is successful and CEOs get rich (meaning he doesn't uphold the Resolution) or Pro"s plan does result in CEO paycuts showing his plan fails to help company performance. These Issues are not nit-picking. I have clear examples of unfair tactics in this round. If you don't vote Con on fairness don't complain when you are treated unfairly in your next debate. The community must uphold standards of discourse to keep debates fair and educational. Pro's R3 (his #'s) 1)Overpaid CEOs are not a violation of shareholder's rights. They can sell stock or get the Board to fire the CEO whenever they want. 2)Pro doesn't address my 3 objections to POTUS salary as benchmark: a) implies legitimacy of CEO pay could be changed by raising POTUS pay b)POTUS pay not subject to free market and he actually proves my c) people don't run for president "for the pay," but CEOs DO choose their employers based on pay. 3)Pro says in his point 4) that I can defend the status quo- this is exactly what I am doing. I am just pointing out that if CEOs perform poorly Boards will cut pay. My position is Boards should make their own decisions. 4)Defending the status quo is comparative. How do I prove the status quo is better than a non-existent advocacy? Also note the following unrefuted benefits of the status quo, all of which apply to Pro's fantasy world plan. a. Squo is only real world option. b. My position avoids ethical ambiguity c. My unrefuted argument for why only free market solves. d. Restricts ability to make leadership decisions. Let me also point out that my arguments are analytical and aren't making fact claims, hence no evidence. Pro's R3 (part 2) 1. My chart shows that S&P is growing healthily, a point which you concede to. The claim that CEOs are "devouring the sheep" is a STRONG claim that needs to be substantiated with evidence of pervasive predatory behavior to the detriment of shareholders. a)Analogy: I watch a flock of 100 sheep for you in exchange for 1 sheep payment. At the end of the year you have 129 sheep (29% increase). If I ask for another sheep as payment (100% raise) would call me a "wolf? " Pay doesn't have to match growth for it to be fair an earned, Pro offers no reason why we should adhere to this standard. Markets decide the value of a CEO- let the companies evaluate whether company performance warrants a raise rather than impose some arbitrary across the board pay cut. b&c) Pro doesn't address my arguments- CEOs can be motivated by Autonomy and still have pay be an important economic factor. Pay is used to attract and retain talent, pay is used simply as a reward or sign of good will and appreciation. The fact that a few CEOs prefer to get paid less doesn't mean we should pay EVERYONE less. d)Pro has shown that shareholders are receiving average returns of 2.5%- how does this show CEOs are hurting shareholders? Pro has not offered any quantitative analysis of how his plan changes returns and has no evidence that returns will increase from 2.5%. Con's case: 1)Pro's plan is just another form of P4P- it rests on the assumption that tying returns to growth will boost CEO performance. His entire critique of P4P undermines his plan. If P4P is really broken then pay is irrelevant to performance and talking about restructuring pay for performance reasons is nonsensical. 2)Pro's plan does not account for job hopping. If a CEO leaves a company, does she keep the full stock package? Or does he forfeit some or all of the stock option? Either way, the plan offers no deterrent for a CEO to "jump ship" if he thinks the company is headed for rough waters- he can just move to a new company and get a more promising portfolio. In the Squo, companies can offer pay increases to retain talent if CEOs are thinking of moving to a new company. There is no flexibility for retention in Pro's plan. This also hurts freedom. 3)Even if P4P is broken, it still makes sense to talk about pay in terms of COMPETITION. A CEO may be motivated by Autonomy while choosing his employer based on salary. a. Pro's plan unfairly hurts companies currently performing poorly. A company with a downward trending stock will never be able to attract a top tier CEO to turn the tides on their company. Hurts freedom. b. This underlines the infeasibility of this plan- as soon a failing company had their back against the wall they would increase CEO benefits to remain competitive. 4)Pro's plan makes being a CEO extremely risky. Imagine your entire livelihood is tied to the performance of one stock, which you cannot sell for 20 years. Even a star CEO is subject to market volatility and uncertainty. Only individuals who are already so well-off they know they will never need another payday would accept; Pro's plan unfairly bars a huge portion of the population from the option of accepting a CEO position. 5)Extend my 4) from R2: Free Markets are only way to determine CEO salary. Pro never addresses my points that salary decision are too situation specific to set broad policy on, or that only individuals can make decisions about what they are willing to pay. 6)Pro's plan is incredibly unjust- it makes current CEOs responsible for the performance of a company 12 years ago, many CEOs weren"t even running their company 12 years ago. Additionally, companies would have to violate benefits contracts to enact the plan. The Squo is more fair- it pays CEOs what they were promised when they signed on. Summary: The biggest issue in this debate is (unfortunately) framework. Pro is running a fantasy plan he kept secret- vote for the only option that is realistic and consistent throughout the debate: status quo. Or vote for the Magic Oxfam plan. [1] . http://www.astronsolutions.net...