- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 34,951
- Reaction score
- 16,311
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Well we were at the closest sense the Great Depression...See post #7.
The first line in the article is wrong.
We have been at the closest sense the Great Depression.We are not "at or near-Depression level unemployment."
It's deceptive, too, in that it looks only at companies that made billions - such firms are likely to have been successful.
One! One!? One!? We should feel so bad for him and give him a huge tax break! :roll:I've already posted one example of a CEO whose compensation decreased drastically.
Never saw anywhere that it stated or began to state that "business has no right to be successful". Wondering how you got that out of the article or the snipit you posted.Then it gets to the heart of the matter, it's thesis: If government is broke, business has no right to be successful.
Well it is a socialist article...The whole piece is replete with anti-capitalist buzz words.
Where is "Workers of the world, unite!" If I read nothing but bilge like this all day, I'd be pissed, too.
No, for some CEO's this is true for others there are other mechanisms for getting money from the company, e.g. deferred compensation.Since CEO pay is almost entirely based on options and incentives, I don't have a problem with it.
Mostly true, especially true with pay that can be seen.Pay is determined on the success of the company, specifically book value..
You only mentioned 2, but the list is very long, e.g. Bank of America. Did you have a motive in selecting those two?Now I would have a problem if a company was drowning in red ink and its CEO was getting more and more money, like the banking giants were doing during the FNMA and FHLMC (that's Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for those of you without a degree in finance) days.
Yes, but a division CEO I knew was rewarded regardless of performance. The he would sit with us at times and brag about the new toys, e.g. motorcycle, he just bought.However, if a company was going "lean and mean" to propel themselves up, then the CEOs should get a reward for shrewd business practices. The truth is that we were running on a faulty business model for many decades, as GM has taught us in spades..
The same CEO put in fewer hours than most others did. One of his best skills was feigning surprise when things went wrong.Besides, with the difficulty involved in being a CEO, they earn the right to demand a lot.
I agree that CEOs should take pay cuts too, it is morally wrong to screw the people on the bottom who do most of the physical work to fatten the pockets of those on top. But there is nothing we can legally do and nor should we legally require them to do anything. We would be treading on dangerous ground if we were to make a maximum wage.
If a CEO's company makes money, why shouldn' the CEO get a raise, like everybody else? Including the workers in the mailroom?
CEOs of public companies? Depends on the strategy of the board and the CEO and what the shareholders want to gripe about.
They will always come out ahead, any token "Salary reduction" would primarily be for show anyway, it would do *nothing* to address all this wrongfully perceived injustice.
I can assure you that if you spent more time and energy on your own career and financial situation, it would yield far greater, and longer lasting returns on your investment, rather than on CEO bashing or CEO salary reduction gimicks. It may even be more fun.
Because the employees, including the workers in the mailroom, don't necessarily get their wages raised whenever the CEOs get a raise.
Well we were at the closest sense the Great Depression...
And,
So you disagree with the study done by Equilar that finds there is a 23% gain from 2009?
We have been at the closest sense the Great Depression.
It looked at all the major corporations and companies, so what? Why does that matter? Its not "deceptive" if it openly tells you that its looking at the major companies and corporations...
One! One!? One!? We should feel so bad for him and give him a huge tax break! :roll:
Never saw anywhere that it stated or began to state that "business has no right to be successful". Wondering how you got that out of the article or the snipit you posted.
Well it is a socialist article...
Well maybe you should stop being so content...
I can only say I would prefer to work with a boss who shares the burden. I'll go to war with that type of person. If he's in it for himself, odds are he has people working for him the same way. Just saying . . . .
I'll go with the guy who knows how to make us profitable. It means not only job security, but regular raises and opportunities for promotion.
CEOs of public companies? Depends on the strategy of the board and the CEO and what the shareholders want to gripe about.
They will always come out ahead, any token "Salary reduction" would primarily be for show anyway, it would do *nothing* to address all this wrongfully perceived injustice.
I can assure you that if you spent more time and energy on your own career and financial situation, it would yield far greater, and longer lasting returns on your investment, rather than on CEO bashing or CEO salary reduction gimicks. It may even be more fun.
Well, that's what it used to mean. The future has yet to be determined.
Why wouldn't it still mean that?
It's just not the way things are anymore. Look at BMW. There is no job security. There is no appreciation for a job well done. If it can be done cheaper elsewhere, cya-bye. You have no job. People are perceived as "overpaid", thanks to the unions, so fire them and start over. That's the America I see now.
Well, we don't agree.
Of course companies want to reduce overhead and yes if they can produce the same product with less expense. Doing so is just good business. I don't agree that most corporations are eager to dump their people onto the unemployment rolls to save a penny on the dollar, tho.
"Firing them and starting over" is a very expensive and difficult proposition, as is closing down and moving elsewhere. And there's no guarantee of a better result.
I want to believe you. Time will tell.
I had more patents than anyone else in the division. I helped more other engineers develop patents than anyone else. I did a lot of mentoring, I think more than anyone else I was aware of. From engineers that I sent out the door I got thanks months later because what I had communicated to them was required everywhere, they were doing it now and now successful. The corporate CEO, from another state, could recognize me when he saw me down the hall and facing away from him, and call my name; but, always to work on a problem, never for a complement. My tasks included developing international standards in a way to benefit our business and the marketplace for our product. My pay was high but not what it should be. (There was prejudice at our division that affected many, and I was on the wrong side of it.) About ten years ago we had a RIF at our division. I volunteered because of the prejudice and I could meet the retirement requirements, though normally I wouldn’t retire for ten more years. (I found that I was already on the list later.) I’ve not been employed since. So what has happened to our net worth with my unemployment for ten years? It has tripled. If I continued working it would have cost us plenty. We invested in real estate and stock bought and sold mostly at the right time, I transferred wealth to us. I didn’t add much value to the economy when compared to what I was doing when employed. But I did what you advise “I can assure you that if you spent more time and energy on your own career and financial situation, it would yield far greater, and longer lasting returns on your investment, rather than on CEO bashing or CEO salary reduction gimmicks. It may even be more fun.” But, I sure didn’t benefit many other people by doing what you suggest.CEOs of public companies? Depends on the strategy of the board and the CEO and what the shareholders want to gripe about.
They will always come out ahead, any token "Salary reduction" would primarily be for show anyway, it would do *nothing* to address all this wrongfully perceived injustice.
I can assure you that if you spent more time and energy on your own career and financial situation, it would yield far greater, and longer lasting returns on your investment, rather than on CEO bashing or CEO salary reduction gimicks. It may even be more fun.
You seemed to be disagreeing with the study and questioning it.I haven't read the study but I won't question it.
The study looks at the 200 highest paid CEO's and their salaries seem to be raised by 23% by 2009! That is ridiculous. Sure some CEO's pay have not been increasing but im still they are doing just dandy.Yes, I found only one CEO who took a pay decrease, and I stumbled onto that one. I'm sure there are more.
How are CEO's not greedy?The article is deceptive in that it exploits one study that appears to have examined only successful companies and then argues that CEOs are greedy.
Im sure i didnt cuz it never said that.I'm sure you didn't see where it says business has no right to be successful.
Really not what it said.It didn't in so few words, but it says that CEO pay increases must be considered against the backdrop of government cutbacks. I'm paraphrasig from memory, but that is I believe the thesis. And it is wrong.
I'm much more content dealing with my company and my future in it than I ever would be in any socialist economy where my labor would be undervalued and heavily taxed.
Really does not go that direction, its just saying these guys are making a whopping while we give them a tax cut, and say hey not enough jobs here, were gonna cut back on these workers why we give ourselves a nice little increase in wages but we still cant hire you workers.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?