Executive compensation

http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-rules-curbing-wall-street-pay-announced-1461247600

Today new rules limiting Wall Street pay were announced - senior executives at largest firms would have to defer more than half their pay for four years under the recently proposed regulations (industry practice is three years). The proposal would also implement a minimum period of seven years for the biggest firms to “claw back” executive bonuses if it turns out that executive’s actions hurt the institution. The proposals try to make sure that executives don’t make risky decisions in the short-term to prop up their pay and walk away with outsized bonuses. Bonuses are obviously a big part of Wall Street culture. What do you all think of this? Is this a good way of making sure compensation packages align the goals of executives with that of the shareholders, or is far too harsh/strict?

Article on Swatting

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/magazine/the-serial-swatter.html?_r=0

I would like to hear people’s thoughts about animal testing. The book bring up a few good points on the issue of using animals for LD 50 tests that can be ridiculous in some notions because the animal can suffer from the volume of the substance compared to the dosage. Animals are also used in cancer and disease research to combat diseases that may affect a population, but at the cost of causing an animal to suffer and mostly likely be killed off during research. The benefits of animal testing are for human benefit, especially when the tests allow for medicine that can be given to those that wouldn’t otherwise be alive. Personally, because I got to work in a lab with animals doing cancer research, I was taught that these animals like mice play a pivotal role in research.  Because of this, I learned to give great respect to these animals for their role in possibly finding a cure to breast cancer. It was sad to see them used in testing, but because other forms of testing are not as effective or telling of how a drug may work in humans, the mice, as was explained to me, had to unfortunately be used in cancer experiments.

Write your thoughts below or similar stories that share your experience with animal testing.

I want to comment on price gouging. In the definition of price gouging, it says that the seller is exploiting a short-term situation in which buyers have few purchase options for a much needed-product by raising prices substantially.

Using that specific definition, isn’t it difficult to say any instance of price gouging is not unethical? I understand that sellers need to compensate for an increase in demand when a product’s supply is limited, but that doesn’t offer the seller the ability to exploit. Exploiting is an unfair and selfish act, and to the point where people feel exploited is being unethical. The seller can also raise prices, but not in a way that seems substantial compared to the price of the commodity before. Therefore, to the point were price adjustment is considered price gouging, shouldn’t that terminology signal the company or business acting unethically? Post any thoughts or comments to these questions below.

I may just be shouting into the void here, as I don't see a lot of activity on here, but the recent release of the "Panama Papers" has got me wondering how people feel about offshore tax havens.  I'll be the first to admit that I don't really understand how they work, but what little I do know leads me to believe that they often are not technically illegal, but use tax loopholes in the tax code.  So should blame lie more with the companies that are being sheisty but also have some responsibility to make as much money as possible?  Or with the government that leaves these loopholes?  Or am I just completely wrong about how all this works?

Perhaps this isn't business related, but where do people stand on the Apple vs the FBI debate? I don't think Apple is right to refuse to unlock the phone of a murderer, and I don't think the FBI is asking for a secret key that will get them into all iPhones. Even if they were, can't Apple just unlock that phone themselves, without showing the FBI whatever backdoors they have built into their systems? 

A question about Human Nature

Since the class is about business ethics, I think it is important to ask to what extent do people's morals actually govern their behavior? Even if there was no debate on what was ethical in business practices, would people actually do the ethical thing? I think its clear that they wouldn't, at least not in every case. What sorts of reasons do people use to justify violating ethical codes(even ones that they themselves agree with)? Are these reasons actually adequate justification?

Here are some business examples: ripping off customers to increase profits for shareholders, approving/keeping quiet about a product that is unsafe because of pressure from your boss, companies lobbying for decreased regulation (to increase profits) even when regulation might be best for customer safety, producing products in a manner that is legal but poses environmental or safety hazards, etc.

In these situations, it seems some of these actions are ethically questionable. Do the companies/workers reasons justify their actions? Would you go along with these things if you were in these situations?