Biden is not serious about getting the debt under control

[weaver2]

Ok, let me try to simplify this for you. CEO's of publicly traded corporations generally have the bulk of their compensation tied to the underlying stock performance through options and grants of company stock. They often have certain criteria they have to hit in order to earn those stock awards. So a CEO's compensation is largely tied to the profitability of a corporation, combined with other strategic goals. I have yet to see a goal that is "employ more people". They employ whatever the appropriate number of people is to maximize profits, that's the goal of any and all businesses. You don't employ more people than you need. The CEO doesn't get paid to fire people. They get paid to improve the long term performance of a company. Moreover, CEO compensation for a given year is almost never related to that actual year, because of the lag in grants and option vesting.

Seriously, if you want to have this conversation we can, but you have to understand how things actually work before you just got internet rage.

There is another side to corporate compensation

Profitability of the corporation and price of stock are often not related. Also much of the recent profitability of many very large corporations has been the result of letting employees go with no support other than unemployment compensation. The other source of high profit has been SBA loans which have largely turned into outright grants since they do not have to be paid back. Keep in mind that the Small Business Administration defines a business as any factory with fewer than 500 employees and for agricultural corporations a small business is less then 1000 employees. Most of the pandemic support has gone to corporations not small, truly small businesses.

So when the public is told compensation of the CEO, CFO, COO of big corporations is justified because they work so hard, keep in mind that a great deal of their work is hiring huge platoons of lawyers to scour the fine print for all the loop holes that will suck the funds out of support programs for small businesses, bust unions, reduce wages, break apart mills and factories, fire workers, stiff towns on taxes and take workers pensions.

And yes I don't know all the fine points of how a corporation operates but I lived in Maine, watched corporations destroy the paper industry and impoverish generations of skilled paper makers. I get really tired of lectures about how the the noble CEOs of large corporation work hard for their compensation.

 

[Sand Castle]

Ok, let me try to simplify this for you. CEO's of publicly traded corporations generally have the bulk of their compensation tied to the underlying stock performance through options and grants of company stock. They often have certain criteria they have to hit in order to earn those stock awards. So a CEO's compensation is largely tied to the profitability of a corporation, combined with other strategic goals. I have yet to see a goal that is "employ more people". They employ whatever the appropriate number of people is to maximize profits, that's the goal of any and all businesses. You don't employ more people than you need. The CEO doesn't get paid to fire people. They get paid to improve the long term performance of a company. Moreover, CEO compensation for a given year is almost never related to that actual year, because of the lag in grants and option vesting.

Seriously, if you want to have this conversation we can, but you have to understand how things actually work before you just got internet rage.

Again trying to complicate things

Let me make it simple

Corporations have share holders

Corporations have CEOs

Corporations have average workers

The corporation stocks and profits of course are enjoyed by shareholders and then generously shared amongst CEOs the greedy at the top are all happy.

Then maybe the greedy bunch at the top will throw a bone to the average worker like:

Hey I just received millions in stock and cash, but you pion, just be happy you have a job.

Or, yes I know, I know we have made huge profits shareholders are enriching themselves, CEOs yes you deserve millions, but wait we have a gift for you the worker, the life blood of the company, here it comes,

A generous 50 cent per hour raise, go buy yourself a toaster.

Oh yay, save with your new raise, because next year we are closing your workplace, why? You know profit, stocks, and my elaborate lifestyle

 

[KLATTU]

Again trying to complicate things

Let me make it simple

Corporations have share holders

Corporations have CEOs

Corporations have average workers

The corporation stocks and profits of course are enjoyed by shareholders and then generously shared amongst CEOs the greedy at the top are all happy.

Then maybe the greedy bunch at the top will throw a bone to the average worker like:

Hey I just received millions in stock and cash, but you pion, just be happy you have a job.

Or, yes I know, I know we have made huge profits shareholders are enriching themselves, CEOs yes you deserve millions, but wait we have a gift for you the worker, the life blood of the company, here it comes,

A generous 50 cent per hour raise, go buy yourself a toaster.

That worker should find a another job.

 

[iguanaman]

There are no Democrats, and nearly no Republicans, who are serious about the debt. Ultimately, the speaks more about voters' attitudes than anything else. We get the foolish spending we vote for.

Actually it is not the spending that is damaging it is the tax cuts that really hamstring our economy. We really need to spend more on modernization, the rest of the free world has passed us by.

 

[bave]

There is another side to corporate compensation

Profitability of the corporation and price of stock are often not related. Also much of the recent profitability of many very large corporations has been the result of letting employees go with no support other than unemployment compensation. The other source of high profit has been SBA loans which have largely turned into outright grants since they do not have to be paid back. Keep in mind that the Small Business Administration defines a business as any factory with fewer than 500 employees and for agricultural corporations a small business is less then 1000 employees. Most of the pandemic support has gone to corporations not small, truly small businesses.

So when the public is told compensation of the CEO, CFO, COO of big corporations is justified because they work so hard, keep in mind that a great deal of their work is hiring huge platoons of lawyers to scour the fine print for all the loop holes that will suck the funds out of support programs for small businesses, bust unions, reduce wages, break apart mills and factories, fire workers, stiff towns on taxes and take workers pensions.

And yes I don't know all the fine points of how a corporation operates but I lived in Maine, watched corporations destroy the paper industry and impoverish generations of skilled paper makers. I get really tired of lectures about how the the noble CEOs of large corporation work hard for their compensation.

SBA loans during the pandemic are a one off first off. Second their primary purpose was to keep employers from laying people off and that was the only way the loans were forgiven. It wasn't a handout nearly as much as it was for the government to keep an overloaded unemployment system working. A corporation's primary purpose is to generate a return for the owner, working within those confines that's the game.

Piecing out factories and mills are part of the game. If those facilities were still viable, they wouldn't do it.

No one keeps unnecessary workers on payroll.

You can't stiff a town on taxes, they will put a lien on whatever property is there.

You can't steal a pension, ERISA has very strict rules on that.

I am not talking about nobility of anyone, I am simply point out that companies don't fire workers for no reason.

Again trying to complicate things

Let me make it simple

Corporations have share holders

Corporations have CEOs

Corporations have average workers

The corporation stocks and profits of course are enjoyed by shareholders and then generously shared amongst CEOs the greedy at the top are all happy.

Then maybe the greedy bunch at the top will throw a bone to the average worker like:

Hey I just received millions in stock and cash, but you pion, just be happy you have a job.

Or, yes I know, I know we have made huge profits shareholders are enriching themselves, CEOs yes you deserve millions, but wait we have a gift for you the worker, the life blood of the company, here it comes,

A generous 50 cent per hour raise, go buy yourself a toaster.

Oh yay, save with your new raise, because next year we are closing your workplace, why? You know profit, stocks, and my elaborate lifestyle

Yea, that is basically how it works. Employees aren't entitled to a share of the profits. They aren't entitled to to anything outside of their compensation agreement, the same as the C-suite.

 

[bave]

Actually it is not the spending that is damaging it is the tax cuts that really hamstring our economy. We really need to spend more on modernization, the rest of the free world has passed us by.

Look at a chart of real federal spending over time and get back to me.

 

[KLATTU]

Actually it is not the spending that is damaging it is the tax cuts that really hamstring our economyy.

Daily chuckle.
Right- keeping more money in the hands of the people really wrecks the economy.

 

[iguanaman]

Daily chuckle.
Right- keeping more money in the hands of the people really wrecks the economy.

Tax cuts kill spending on needed govt. projects that help keep us competitive in this fast changing world. Tax cuts for the wealthy also glorify greed and workers get less pay increases as management concentrates on maximizing executive pay. We need to make taking exorbitant incomes LESS attractive not more. High tax rates on the highest incomes do that.

 

[iguanaman]

Look at a chart of real federal spending over time and get back to me.

Look at what other free nations have accomplished with govt. spending and get back to me. We have neglected our infrastructure and cut spending on new technologies and have fallen behind because of it. There are more important priorities than the 1%'s earnings.

 

[bave]

Look at what other free nations have accomplished with govt. spending and get back to me. We have neglected our infrastructure and cut spending on new technologies and have fallen behind because of it. There are more important priorities than the 1%'s earnings.

In the EU it generally accomplishes lower GDP, wage growth, job growth, tax revenue growth, and purchasing power.

Yikes.

 

[weaver2]

SBA loans during the pandemic are a one off first off. Second their primary purpose was to keep employers from laying people off and that was the only way the loans were forgiven. It wasn't a handout nearly as much as it was for the government to keep an overloaded unemployment system working. A corporation's primary purpose is to generate a return for the owner, working within those confines that's the game.

The news reports on what big corporations did with the money say differently.

Piecing out factories and mills are part of the game. If those facilities were still viable, they wouldn't do it.

They did in Maine. The Georgia Pacific mill in Old Town was the most profitable paper mill in the Northeast when it declared bankruptcy.

No one keeps unnecessary workers on payroll.
Yes they do. A lot of board members are unnecessary. They are there to vote raises for each other's compensation packages.

You can't stiff a town on taxes, they will put a lien on whatever property is there.

They did, in Maine. I lived in one of those towns.

You can't steal a pension, ERISA has very strict rules on that.

They did in Maine. Bankruptcy laws allowed them to make the federal government responsible for all pensions.

I am not talking about nobility of anyone, I am simply point out that companies don't fire workers for no reason.

They do in order to hire scabs and to break the unions.

Yea, that is basically how it works. Employees aren't entitled to a share of the profits. They aren't entitled to to anything outside of their compensation agreement, the same as the C-suite.

Papermaker are highly skilled workers. You don't keep 1/4 mile long machines turning pulp slurry into paper at 35 miles of paper /hour without skilled and intelligent labor. Those workers were proud of their skills and what they produced. They were proud of the companies they worked for. They were loyal and they made a lot of money for the owners. They deserved to be treated with dignity, like humans. They weren't.

I'm positive you won't read Shredding Paper or Mill Town but they will give you a more realistic picture of how corporations act today. The steel industry, machining, coal, bottled water, most manufacturing industries in the US have suffered the same fate as paper.

 

[KLATTU]

Tax cuts kill spending on needed govt. projects that help keep us competitive in this fast changing world. Tax cuts for the wealthy also glorify greed and workers get less pay increases as management concentrates on maximizing executive pay. We need to make taking exorbitant incomes LESS attractive not more. High tax rates on the highest incomes do that.

You might have a point if there was ever a connection between tax cuts and spending. There never has been, so you have no point,

(The rest of your post is just far left Bolshevik cliches )

 

[bave]

The news reports on what big corporations did with the money say differently.

The news? Do some actual reading on the programs and the analysis. Nothing I said r/e SBA PPP loans is even debated by any economist on left or right.

They did in Maine. The Georgia Pacific mill in Old Town was the most profitable paper mill in the Northeast when it declared bankruptcy.

First off, no one shuts down a profitable mill and show me something that said otherwise and I will happily read it. Second, a quick read of the mill in Old Town shows that the problems were largely related to competition against overseas imports combined with issues with the union. So much so that they couldn't find a new buyer for the mill. Let me explain something to you. If you have a profitable business, you will find a buyer at some price. An inability to find a buyer entirely tells you that the mill was not a viable going business concern.

They did, in Maine. I lived in one of those towns.

Citation? Property and local EIC taxes are generally paid either in advance or as accrued.

They did in Maine. Bankruptcy laws allowed them to make the federal government responsible for all pensions.

False, this is in my area of expertise. PBGC and ERISA rules are not going to let this happen, period. Pension assets in private corporations are required to be segregated from other liabilities and meet annual threshold testing requirements. This is largely so exactly this can't happen. PBGC database shows no reference to a claim related to GP-Old Town, ME.

They do in order to hire scabs and to break the unions.

A business has a right to decide to not deal with a union. The union has the right to fight that. Sometimes the union has the power, sometimes the business has the power. If the union pushes too far the business might walk, which is a large factor of what happened in Old Town.

Papermaker are highly skilled workers. You don't keep 1/4 mile long machines turning pulp slurry into paper at 35 miles of paper /hour without skilled and intelligent labor. Those workers were proud of their skills and what they produced. They were proud of the companies they worked for. They were loyal and they made a lot of money for the owners. They deserved to be treated with dignity, like humans. They weren't.

I can't comment on the skill set, highly skilled is a stretch, that's a pretty tough definition to meet for blue collar labor. The claims of loyalty, from both sides, only extends as far as economic benefit to both parties. Unions will always be loyal when they are getting a good deal, corporations as well. The loyalty fails when either side no longer feels that is the case, which is what happened in Old Town. GP obviously felt that the union combined with overseas competition made the plant in Old Town no longer viable. I would not expect any business to maintain a non-viable entity.

I'm positive you won't read Shredding Paper or Mill Town but they will give you a more realistic picture of how corporations act today. The steel industry, machining, coal, bottled water, most manufacturing industries in the US have suffered the same fate as paper.

This is largely my expertise.

 

[tshade]

Look, I get you are close to teachers or have some sort of vested interest, but it is what it is. When you look at jobs you and annual income the comparison is on a full time job, that means hours worked. When you have a teacher that has 5 hours of classroom time per day, 186 days a year, you are already at 930 hours a year before sick/vacation time etc. That's not a full time job so you can't compare the wages to a full time job. Your friend who is a carpenter making $300M a year is more than likely a small business owner and probably building houses, probably has a bunch of employees etc. I would also wager those months he is working, he is probably doing 12 hour days 6-7 days a week. I never said the job was easy, I am simply pointing out how a reasonable person looks at compensation.

No-----"full-time" is not just hours worked....unless you limit it to just certain jobs that have hourly wages...................Teachers are working when they are not in the classroom, just a different work. Don't most people have sick/vac time??? No, not a "reasonable" (although you sound like one), but rather narrow in perspective. Teachers may have the advantage in understanding the work-force differences since most teachers have/do work other jobs, while those others (like yourself) have never taught in a public school.

Generous benefits are health insurance and OOP costs that are generous compared to other private sector peers and DB plans. If teachers worked long hours yes it would help education. It would mean extended education, more personalized time with students, longer school days to keep kids off dangerous streets etc. So, remember that when you hear the Chicago or LA teacher's union talk about it being "about the kids" when they absolutely won't do anything about summer's off or reducing kids time on the streets.

??? My friends at Google(and family) have benefits far beyond teachers. Again, it depends on the business and the school. I no of few if any teachers who do not put extra time in(unpaid), and there are studies out there showing/suggesting that longer hours would not mean more learning. A case of diminishing returns when working with kids, i guess........ It sounds like "good families" are the real problem here.....

Let me know when you get a fix for that. Honestly, the first step is to separate the families/kids who care and that means options to let these kids out of failing public schools ,aka: charter schools.

Well, since public schools are a key to our democracy, I would hate to see $ taken away for the more priviledged schools.......The "fix for that" is long term-----a focus on children & families

 

[tshade]

No, I don't think the average teacher is doing squat outside the classroom hours. Some of them might spend a tiny amount of time helping kids, but that is rare and in my experience fades over time. Guidance counselors? Yea, bang up job that group is doing. Keep sending kids to crappy colleges, for crappy degrees, that can't support themselves. These guidance counselors need to be giving real advice, but they aren't and it s one of the biggest failings of the public system.

Well, our experiences have been different and it is hard to debate it. But guidance counselors are, in effect, quasi-administrators who do not "counsel" anyone, really.....

Have you ever seen someone with tenure faired? It is almost impossible unless a crime is committed.

Yes----we have fired some. But true, a crime or a breaking of the Pa. school Code. It is hard to find someone incompetent after the heavy vetting process teachers have to get hired. Then there is the issue of judging that incompetence--------tricky business. I mean, what makes a "good teacher" ????

You are right the teacheers dont elect the board, lazy constituents do, but what happens when the tax burden guts the entire area? People leave, I was one of them, and the unfunded portion of that liability becomes unsustainable and collapses. Good luck getting the pension and rretirementbenefits then.

The pension does not come from the school board----it is a state thing. So, yes, it is always up to each community as to the kind of schools they want. A school is a real reflection of the people in a community.

 

[iguanaman]

In the EU it generally accomplishes lower GDP, wage growth, job growth, tax revenue growth, and purchasing power.

Yikes.

Most of Europe has a higher quality of life then here. They work less hours and have more vacation time too.

You might have a point if there was ever a connection between tax cuts and spending. There never has been, so you have no point,

(The rest of your post is just far left Bolshevik cliches )

There is a connection right now. The GOP says we are too broke to make America ready for the future. They have been saying it for decades too.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

...Has nothing to do with what I posted

Your thread is about what you perceive as lies and bogus promises. I provided you with a proven example of lies and bogus promises.

 

[Deuce]

Like clockwork, right wingers start pretending to care about deficits again.

 

[bave]

No-----"full-time" is not just hours worked....unless you limit it to just certain jobs that have hourly wages...................Teachers are working when they are not in the classroom, just a different work. Don't most people have sick/vac time??? No, not a "reasonable" (although you sound like one), but rather narrow in perspective. Teachers may have the advantage in understanding the work-force differences since most teachers have/do work other jobs, while those others (like yourself) have never taught in a public school.

Full vs part time is actually solely determined by hours worked. I have been on school boards, I have spoken with hundreds of teachers, their union reps etc. They aren't working anything resembling a full time schedule.

??? My friends at Google(and family) have benefits far beyond teachers. Again, it depends on the business and the school. I no of few if any teachers who do not put extra time in(unpaid), and there are studies out there showing/suggesting that longer hours would not mean more learning. A case of diminishing returns when working with kids, i guess........ It sounds like "good families" are the real problem here.....

A google engineer is in a world apart from an average public employee. Remember that reference of the average student, to the average school, in a joke degree? That is the opposite of an engineer at a top tech firm. They overall comp package is going to be vastly different.

Well, since public schools are a key to our democracy, I would hate to see $ taken away for the more priviledged schools.......The "fix for that" is long term-----a focus on children & families

How do you figure they are the key to our democracy? Education is important, but it needs to be function and cost effective. The US spends more than any other major developed nation for public education and gets inferior results. I don't believe spending is part of that necessarily and I believe that the expensive states with strong unions are probably a net-negative.

The pension does not come from the school board----it is a state thing. So, yes, it is always up to each community as to the kind of schools they want. A school is a real reflection of the people in a community.

I couldn't disagree more. The schools are a reflection of the power of the local unions more than anything else and I could offer reams of data to support that. The simple fact of the matter is that time and time again we see school boards pushing ever increasing taxes onto the community out of the idea of "for the kids" when in reality it is to maintain their cushy compensation packages while making sure to bear no risk burden.

I get it, you are in the field, this is how you get paid. That is my entire point. Someone on the inside of this is going to take the righteous high ground, that's the MO. The reality is our spending on education nationally is absurd and in many regions it is pure insanity.

 

[bave]

Like clockwork, right wingers start pretending to care about deficits again.

Who could possibly get worried about deficits when you see proposals for 6-8 *TRILLION* in new deficit spending?

 

[tshade]

Full vs part time is actually solely determined by hours worked. I have been on school boards, I have spoken with hundreds of teachers, their union reps etc. They aren't working anything resembling a full time schedule.

They are considered full-time employees by contract, or any other definition you can use.....

A google engineer is in a world apart from an average public employee. Remember that reference of the average student, to the average school, in a joke degree? That is the opposite of an engineer at a top tech firm. They overall comp package is going to be vastly different.

Yes, agree. So we agree it depends on the business, just like it depends on the school.

How do you figure they are the key to our democracy? Education is important, but it needs to be function and cost effective. The US spends more than any other major developed nation for public education and gets inferior results. I don't believe spending is part of that necessarily and I believe that the expensive states with strong unions are probably a net-negative.

Because all students are welcome with equal opportunity regardless of social status, wealth, etc, etc.............How do you figure "inferior results" ??? Public education is a public good. Money is important, but not like a business.

I couldn't disagree more. The schools are a reflection of the power of the local unions more than anything else and I could offer reams of data to support that. The simple fact of the matter is that time and time again we see school boards pushing ever increasing taxes onto the community out of the idea of "for the kids" when in reality it is to maintain their cushy compensation packages while making sure to bear no risk burden.

Whoa----I guess we disagree alright. We elect boards to set policy, etc, etc------those boards are elected by the people in the community, not the 200 union members....... ?? Boards don't make "compensation"...

I get it, you are in the field, this is how you get paid. That is my entire point. Someone on the inside of this is going to take the righteous high ground, that's the MO. The reality is our spending on education nationally is absurd and in many regions it is pure insanity.

Well, we just disagree on the attitude a person has in teaching. It is a calling. If a teacher forgets that calling, then we need to know why. Leadership again. Opinions on what is absurd varies. Many people look at the spending on kids/schools as the most worthwhile thing you can focus money on.........

 

[Deuce]

Who could possibly get worried about deficits when you see proposals for 6-8 *TRILLION* in new deficit spending?

The whining would be more convincing if they didn't suddenly stop caring every time a Republican got into the white house.

 

[KLATTU]

Your thread is about what you perceive as lies and bogus promises. I provided you with a proven example of lies and bogus promises.

Right in my OP I said:


"Please don't bother responding that the GOP isn't serious about it either . I've already said that umpteen times."

 

[Port & Starboard]

Actually it is not the spending that is damaging it is the tax cuts that really hamstring our economy. We really need to spend more on modernization, the rest of the free world has passed us by.

$25 million for gender studies in Pakistan isn't a spending problem?

 

[bave]

They are considered full-time employees by contract, or any other definition you can use.....

Key words, "by contract". Which proves my point about the power of the unions. This isn't a good hill to die on in an argument. No economist would ever agree that a job is full time that is ~800-1200 hours worked a year, with the upper end of that range being rather generous.

Yes, agree. So we agree it depends on the business, just like it depends on the school.

Absolutely not. Google is in a competitive situation to hire and retain top talent. There is a reason why the average Google engineer is looking at ~300-400k/yr in total comp. It isn't because they have a strong union, it is because they are hard to find, extremely productive, and on the cutting edge. Your compensation model has to be competitive to attract them. Again, not trying to be mean, but teachers are average in almost every way professional. It isn't hard to complete an education major. The schools they go to for college educations are largely immaterial. A huge portion of the nation is capable of academically being a teacher. A far, far smaller is capable of being a top tier engineer. That's why it is different primarily. Secondarily, Google is a for profit enterprise. They pay what it takes to maintain profitability and don't in turn *demand* an inefficiency. Public unions in many states demand more in cost/comp than they otherwise would purely because of their monopoly and local power structure, certainly not because of results. Does anyone actually believe that New York warrants a total teacher compensation structure that is ~2x that of Iowa for instance?

Because all students are welcome with equal opportunity regardless of social status, wealth, etc, etc.............How do you figure "inferior results" ???

I'm not sure how equal opportunity in a government service makes it key to a democracy, at all. Inferior results? How about look at any global analysis of public education. We have the second highest spending per capita (behind Switzerland) and the students are below average in almost every metric compared to other developed nations. So, we are spending more than everyone and getting worse results. That's a pretty good indication of a failed system. According to teachers unions and the NEA the money is the only thing that matters and if we give them more money the children will do better. All data says that isn't true.

Those boards are elected by the people in the community, not the 200 union members....... ?? Boards don't make "compensation"...

I believe the only paid school board positions are those in mega-cities, moreover that looks more like a bribe to me than anything. Get the school board on the gravy train with the union. Look at where these things happen btw and you will see that trend. Incredibly strong metro unions = paid school board positions.

I have watched it time and time again. Teacher's contract is up for negotiation, teacher's dont get what they want and strike 2 weeks before the resumption of school and put tons of pressure on local families who can't find a solution to force the resolution. The average voter just doesn't care enough to turn out in an odd-man election. There is a reason these local elections are run at odd times with terrible turn outs. It is designed that way. The part you are missing is that these states/communities are bankrupting over this, it won't work. Just look at PSERs funding. It used to be ~90% funded, now it is 50%. Look at NY, NJ, and Illinois. These places are bleeding households. No one wants to live in these areas anymore because of the constant tax problems largely because of the union strength across all public employment groups.

It is a calling. If a teacher forgets that calling, then we need to know why. Leadership again. Opinions on what is absurd varies. Many people look at the spending on kids/schools as the most worthwhile thing you can focus money on.........

Most people are f'n morons. All the data suggests spending doesn't equal results in education. GMAFB with the calling card. It's a job, period. 80% of the teachers I spoke, a large number, would absolutely tell you they were attracted to the profession for a long list of reasons including the time off, work hours, conditions, compensation, benefits, etc. The idea that these people are sacrificing themselves on the altar is part of the union scam. Again, I am not saying it is different for any other job, but no other job demands to be put on a dais like this. If poor leadership snuffs out a flame, then it tells you that flame was weak to begin with.