CEO salaries, corporate power and employees

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderators: Global Moderators, Discussions Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: CEO salaries, corporate power and employees

Postby BigBallinStalin on Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:46 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
So, if all employees were paid a living wage, would the different prices of different corporate executives become irrelevant?

Yes, as long as the company is still profitable. A unprofitable company will fail, so by definition, that matters.

But as stargazer indicated, the profits must be real and true, not simply gimmicks using government funding or accounting "tricks (moving debt from one entity to another without really paying it off, for example). Also, profit must be long term, not just a matter of months or a single year. Its too easy for companies in today's world to hide real debt and pretend profits when none really exist.


If profit must be long-term, then does this mean that during the onset of the automobile, all horse-and-buggy producers should have had long-term profits?


HEY-OHH!!!

Where's teh answer?
User avatar
Colonel BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 3577
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: CEO salaries, corporate power and employees

Postby thegreekdog on Fri Feb 01, 2013 12:13 am

stahrgazer wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:Answer my other questions in the other thread. Until you do that...

There is a distinct and marked difference between the CEO of General Electric and the chairman of Goldman Sachs. Your numbers (2) through (4) demonstrate how there are marked differences. For example, your (4) above states that "it's just another example" which demonstrates that the situations are different although your interpretation of the ultimate goals may be the same.


Whether I read through the entire thread to answer stuff I've probably already answered, but you're too blind to see; or whether I don't...

"Just another example," implies similarity, not differences.

There's not much difference between the CEO of GE and the chairman of GS. GE is undermining small businesses by becoming a multiglomerate and taking alot of its manufacturing OUTSIDE the United States, which small businesses cannot compete with. GE became able to do this primarily because of taxpayers and government-awarded contracts and in return, is making its CEO and its stockholders rich while forgetting how it got there, just as the chairman of GS made its CEO and its stockholders rich while forgetting how it got there. In both examples, the taxpayers were left holding the bag, and in both examples, the companies are f*g the American businesses and workers.


Right... and what's the point again? It appears that the shareholder of General Electric are content with this situation. Furthermore, and more relevant to our current conversation (see the subject of the thread?), your great diatribe here does not have anything to do with CEO salaries, corporate power and employees.

stahrgazer wrote:It's like this, dearie: Blue and red may be different along the light spectrum, but they both fit somewhere on that spectrum; just as GS and GE may produce different products, but they both conduct practices that undermine rather than support what made them great, and what made this country great.


Dearie?

In the context of CEO salaries, corporate power, and employees, there are very stark differences between GE and Goldman. I doubt there are many Goldman employees complaining about their salaries. I doubt the CEO of GE is very concerned about the financial derivatives.
Image
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 6217
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2) General Contribution (2)

Re: CEO salaries, corporate power and employees

Postby PLAYER57832 on Fri Feb 01, 2013 3:10 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
stahrgazer wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:I think you're confusing corporate CEOs with financial service providers. They aren't the same thing.


1) Wrong, many financial service providers are companies that have corporate CEOs.
2) Wrong, I said quite clearly, many non-financial-service companies invested, via wall street, in those questionable CDOs and participated in the buying/selling/repackaging of them.
3) Wrong, as I've mentioned before, many CEOs of one company are on the boards of directors of other companies, including financial service provider companies.
4) Wrong. It's just another example of "money-power used unethically to the detriment of the country." As I'd said.


Answer my other questions in the other thread. Until you do that...

There is a distinct and marked difference between the CEO of General Electric and the chairman of Goldman Sachs. Your numbers (2) through (4) demonstrate how there are marked differences. For example, your (4) above states that "it's just another example" which demonstrates that the situations are different although your interpretation of the ultimate goals may be the same.

The REAL bottom line is that to the average employee in the US, it really doesn't matter, nor should it.. any more than it really matters in your day-to-day life whether a person is a zoologist or a wildlife biologist. Both should use credible science, come up with credible data.

Whether you call yourself a CEO, a financial service provider executive or whatever is irrelevant. The point is that rules are structured so that folks dealing with lots of money and who benefit the most from various transactions are the same ones who set the rules, who even pretty well decide what is taught in business schools, economic theory.

Meanwhile, most people just want to do their job, do it well and get paid for their hard work, without having to play a lot of gimmics, spend tons of money to hire someone to make sure they are not cheated financially or otherwise.

When you want to claim that working 40 hours a week doesn't entitle someone to have a house and feed their family, then it pretty much seems like you are talking about the 1900's or some other country... not the great US of A.
Sergeant PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2324
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: CEO salaries, corporate power and employees

Postby stahrgazer on Fri Feb 01, 2013 4:54 pm

thegreekdog wrote:Dearie?

In the context of CEO salaries, corporate power, and employees, there are very stark differences between GE and Goldman. I doubt there are many Goldman employees complaining about their salaries. I doubt the CEO of GE is very concerned about the financial derivatives.


You can doubt all you like, but you'd be inaccurate.

Goldman Sachs Reacts To Poor Quarter With 1,000 Planned Layoffs

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/1 ... 03791.html

GE Bond Fund Investors Cash Out After Losses From Subprime
Nov. 15 (Bloomberg) -- A short-term bond fund run by General Electric Co.'s GE Asset Management returned money to investors at 96 cents on the dollar after losing about $200 million, mostly on mortgage-backed securities.


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ad7C32asHxJw

Meanwhile:



Not very recently but in a couple of weeks or so we're due to get another raise. GE wants us to forgo any raises until the next contract in (I think)2011.
That's what I suspect this meeting is about. If we don't give up our raises, they may put us all on a 32 hour work week.
Not only will that reduce our wages but it will make us inelligible for supplemental pay that helps make up wages when you're laid off.
BTW, Jeff Immelt CEO of GE gave up his bonus in 2008.(it was $3,300,000 the previous year) Between salary, stock awards, deferred earnings etc he still made $14,096,603 in 2008. In other words he made more in one quarter than any of us will make in our lifetime. Poor baby.

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/erie-pa ... KL7L16N0VA

CTJ Report: General Electric Paid 2.3% Federal Taxes on $81 Billion Profit

General Electric paid just 2.3 percent in federal taxes over the last decade, despite earning more than $81 billion in profits over that..
February 29, 2012 with 0 Comments
GENERAL ELECTRIC MADE $14.2 BILLION PROFIT IN 2010; PAID $0.00 IN TAXES
GENERAL ELECTRIC MADE $14.2 BILLION PROFIT IN 2010; PAID $0.00 IN TAXES

General Electric (GE) corporation earned $14,200,000,000 in profits in 2010, but for the second year in a row paid absolutely no federal..

http://morallowground.com/tag/ge-layoffs/
Image
User avatar
Captain stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...
Medals: 52
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (6) Tournament Contribution (1)
General Contribution (7)

Re: CEO salaries, corporate power and employees

Postby thegreekdog on Mon Feb 04, 2013 10:11 am

TGD wrote:GE doesn't care about financial derivatives


stahrgazer wrote:Goldman Sachs lays off some people which is proof that GE does care about financial derivatives.


Wrong company dearie. Try again.

stahrgazer wrote:GE loses $200 million on mortgage-backed securities.


There you go! Nice work. Now you need to prove that $200 million is enough for GE to care about AND that GE cares more about it than other companies AND that GE's corporate officers' salaries are influenced by decisions related to mortgage-backed securities. I'm sure you can get your professor to help you.

stahrgazer wrote:In 2011, GE forces people to work 32 hours a week to pay them less and not give them supplemental pay when they are laid off. CEO makes $14 million in salary, stock awards, and deferred earnings in 2008.


Other than the fact that the dates are three years apart (and the major portion is from two years ago) and other than the fact that stock awards and deferred earnings probably make up 95% to 99% of that $14 million, it's disturbing. So what? What contributes to this and what do you think we should do about it? Two questions you have yet to answer.

stahrgazer wrote:GE paid 2.3% federal taxes on $81 billion of profit.


The same bogus fact that keeps being brought up again and again and again by ignorant media members. How much of those profits were earned in the United States? How much of those profits were earned overseas? How much tax did GE pay overseas? Is this "problem" of GE not paying enough US taxes indicative of GE doing something wrong; if the answer is yes, please explain exactly what GE is doing wrong and how you propose to fix it?
Image
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 6217
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2) General Contribution (2)

Re: CEO salaries, corporate power and employees

Postby stahrgazer on Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:53 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
TGD wrote:GE doesn't care about financial derivatives


stahrgazer wrote:Goldman Sachs lays off some people which is proof that GE does care about financial derivatives.


Wrong company dearie. Try again.

stahrgazer wrote:GE loses $200 million on mortgage-backed securities.


There you go! Nice work. Now you need to prove that $200 million is enough for GE to care about AND that GE cares more about it than other companies AND that GE's corporate officers' salaries are influenced by decisions related to mortgage-backed securities. I'm sure you can get your professor to help you.

stahrgazer wrote:In 2011, GE forces people to work 32 hours a week to pay them less and not give them supplemental pay when they are laid off. CEO makes $14 million in salary, stock awards, and deferred earnings in 2008.


Other than the fact that the dates are three years apart (and the major portion is from two years ago) and other than the fact that stock awards and deferred earnings probably make up 95% to 99% of that $14 million, it's disturbing. So what? What contributes to this and what do you think we should do about it? Two questions you have yet to answer.

stahrgazer wrote:GE paid 2.3% federal taxes on $81 billion of profit.


The same bogus fact that keeps being brought up again and again and again by ignorant media members. How much of those profits were earned in the United States? How much of those profits were earned overseas? How much tax did GE pay overseas? Is this "problem" of GE not paying enough US taxes indicative of GE doing something wrong; if the answer is yes, please explain exactly what GE is doing wrong and how you propose to fix it?


It's not a "bogus fact," it's a real fact.

It's a US company that got big enough to go "overseas" at all because of US Government contracts, so it's "wrong" morally/patriotically, even if it's currently "Legal." But man the stinkum that Obama wants to close those loopholes and go after taxes for US companies' foreign assets (like our nation used to do.)

Personally I'd like to see trade tariffs on imports reinstated to re-equalize the balance, making it more profitable to employ people here to make things to export than to do the reverse.

It'd sure help ensure that our nation's defenses can be done properly.

I've stated in threads I worked for Pratt & Whitney at one time. At the time, some of the parts we needed could no longer be obtained from U.S. manufacturers because all the manufacturing got moved overseas. How'd you like your next-generation Air Force jet to be "made in Japan," or "Made in China," or "Made in Pakistan," like so many other jobs/products did? Imagine it, Greek, having our nation's security dependent on Pakistanis keeping our products "secret" from possible terrorists within their border.

Or would you say that our government shouldn't allow that to happen? Shouldn't deal with companies who manufacture overseas just in case that means our defense products ALSO get made overseas?

If not our defense products, why any of the products that we could and used to make here?

Should the government do what it can to keep production lines open so our US defense products DO continue to be 100% national? Well, to do that, it means "manufacturing" has to be kept here. And to do that, the government has to step in. And if the government steps in on that (as I believe it should have all along) then these CEOs can't send our jobs "over there," to claim massive profits.

I'd like to see a system that bases a product on its cost to make, not on "whatever the fools will pay." We do it in times of emergency (price gouging after a hurricane, etc., is a felony offense) and if we stopped that, the companies wouldn't go make things overseas for peanuts, to sell it here at prices just as though they were made here (Nike vs. New Balance, for example) which means CEO salaries would naturally be less.


As to your complaint that in my examples the cause sometimes preceded the effect by three years, well, sometimes that happens in economics, dearie. The "housing crash" technically took place in 2008 but there are still a ton of houses upside-down, still banks paying off TARP, still folks who were laid off then that aren't back to work (so more houses being foreclosed on)... as I said, sometimes there is a time delay between cause and effect.
Image
User avatar
Captain stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...
Medals: 52
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (6) Tournament Contribution (1)
General Contribution (7)

Re: CEO salaries, corporate power and employees

Postby thegreekdog on Mon Feb 04, 2013 11:38 pm

stahrgazer wrote:It's not a "bogus fact," it's a real fact.

It's a US company that got big enough to go "overseas" at all because of US Government contracts, so it's "wrong" morally/patriotically, even if it's currently "Legal." But man the stinkum that Obama wants to close those loopholes and go after taxes for US companies' foreign assets (like our nation used to do.)

Personally I'd like to see trade tariffs on imports reinstated to re-equalize the balance, making it more profitable to employ people here to make things to export than to do the reverse.


I'm not really sure what to make of this part. It's a bogus fact because it's used to justify discussions about General Electric not paying it's fair share (whatever that may be). If the people that like to use such statistics bothered to report the entirety of tax paid by General Electric, they might understand that GE is paying it's fair share (whatever that may be). If people that like to use such statistics had any sense, they would realize that their outrage is better served by being directed at Congress and the president, and not at the company itself. And patriotism? Do you pay more taxes than you are legally required to pay? Would you purchase stock in a company that pays more taxes than they are legally required to pay? Would you work for a company knowing that your salary would be lower if the company paid more taxes than it legally had to pay? If you answer yes to any of those questions, you're lying.

I don't disagree that there are things that can be done to the current tax code that would force companies to pay more in taxes. What I disagree with is the characterization that paying more taxes than is legally required has to do with morality. And I also disagree with your characterization of the president as someone who wants to close loopholes. He just recently signed an extension of various tax incentives for big business, while at the same time raising taxes on all individual Americans. So stop with that "Obama wants to close loopholes" nonsense. Obama doesn't want to close loopholes. And they aren't loopholes when they are purposefully placed in the tax code by Congress.

stahrgazer wrote:It'd sure help ensure that our nation's defenses can be done properly.


No kidding.

stahrgazer wrote:I'd like to see a system that bases a product on its cost to make, not on "whatever the fools will pay." We do it in times of emergency (price gouging after a hurricane, etc., is a felony offense) and if we stopped that, the companies wouldn't go make things overseas for peanuts, to sell it here at prices just as though they were made here (Nike vs. New Balance, for example) which means CEO salaries would naturally be less.


Do you have an i-phone or similar device? How much money did you pay for it?

I purchased an i-phone for $300. How much would the device have cost if Apple manufactured the device and all of its attendant parts in the United States? Would that have influenced my decision to purchase the i-phone?

It's great to want US companies to manufacture in the United States and it's great that we want people to have jobs. But all those people that now have jobs wouldn't be able to afford the product and you wouldn't either because the costs would be too high. And trust me, the CEO taking a $10 million cut in pay isn't going to make up for that cost.

The problem with jobs going overseas has to do directly with US taxation, US regulations, and US employment laws. I'm not saying we should or need to change any of that stuff, but if you're suggesting we do change these things, think about the relative cost to US consumers.
Image
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 6217
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2) General Contribution (2)

Re: CEO salaries, corporate power and employees

Postby stahrgazer on Wed Feb 06, 2013 10:51 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
stahrgazer wrote:It's not a "bogus fact," it's a real fact.

It's a US company that got big enough to go "overseas" at all because of US Government contracts, so it's "wrong" morally/patriotically, even if it's currently "Legal." But man the stinkum that Obama wants to close those loopholes and go after taxes for US companies' foreign assets (like our nation used to do.)

Personally I'd like to see trade tariffs on imports reinstated to re-equalize the balance, making it more profitable to employ people here to make things to export than to do the reverse.


I'm not really sure what to make of this part. It's a bogus fact because it's used to justify discussions about General Electric not paying it's fair share (whatever that may be). If the people that like to use such statistics bothered to report the entirety of tax paid by General Electric, they might understand that GE is paying it's fair share (whatever that may be). If people that like to use such statistics had any sense, they would realize that their outrage is better served by being directed at Congress and the president, and not at the company itself. And patriotism? Do you pay more taxes than you are legally required to pay? Would you purchase stock in a company that pays more taxes than they are legally required to pay? Would you work for a company knowing that your salary would be lower if the company paid more taxes than it legally had to pay? If you answer yes to any of those questions, you're lying.

I don't disagree that there are things that can be done to the current tax code that would force companies to pay more in taxes. What I disagree with is the characterization that paying more taxes than is legally required has to do with morality. And I also disagree with your characterization of the president as someone who wants to close loopholes. He just recently signed an extension of various tax incentives for big business, while at the same time raising taxes on all individual Americans. So stop with that "Obama wants to close loopholes" nonsense. Obama doesn't want to close loopholes. And they aren't loopholes when they are purposefully placed in the tax code by Congress.

stahrgazer wrote:It'd sure help ensure that our nation's defenses can be done properly.


No kidding.

stahrgazer wrote:I'd like to see a system that bases a product on its cost to make, not on "whatever the fools will pay." We do it in times of emergency (price gouging after a hurricane, etc., is a felony offense) and if we stopped that, the companies wouldn't go make things overseas for peanuts, to sell it here at prices just as though they were made here (Nike vs. New Balance, for example) which means CEO salaries would naturally be less.


Do you have an i-phone or similar device? How much money did you pay for it?

I purchased an i-phone for $300. How much would the device have cost if Apple manufactured the device and all of its attendant parts in the United States? Would that have influenced my decision to purchase the i-phone?

It's great to want US companies to manufacture in the United States and it's great that we want people to have jobs. But all those people that now have jobs wouldn't be able to afford the product and you wouldn't either because the costs would be too high. And trust me, the CEO taking a $10 million cut in pay isn't going to make up for that cost.

The problem with jobs going overseas has to do directly with US taxation, US regulations, and US employment laws. I'm not saying we should or need to change any of that stuff, but if you're suggesting we do change these things, think about the relative cost to US consumers.


No, I don't have an i-phone and wont because they're not manufactured in the US but they charge as though they are.

Review the costs in your stores of Nike and Reebok vs. New Balance. New Balance is made in the US.
Here's one at random.

Minimus 10 Trail
4.9 / 5
4.9 / 5
Open Ratings Snapshot
Read all reviews
Write a review
Women's Running
- Style# WT10BL
$79.99

Here's a Nike, not made in the US, cheapest one I saw:

NIKE FREE RUN+ 3
Women's Running Shoe
$100

Here's a Reebok, also not made in the US
ZigLite Electrify
(7)
$99.99 reg $69.99 sale
More Colors


$69.99 on sale or $99.99/100.00 for a non-US shoe vs. 79.99 for a US shoe that's frequently recommended by podiatrists (foot docs, who should know what's best for feet) over the non-US brands.

Tell me again that the cost of a product made in the US would be substantially higher. :lol:

p.s. it's still not a "bogus fact" that with all the money GE, a supposedly US company makes, it pays nil in taxes. And yes, I do blame Congress for being so bought-and-paid-for by corporations that they put those taxcodes in that favor foreign rather than domestic investment while eliminating the tariffs that would make up the difference to keep our country healthily employed.
Image
User avatar
Captain stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...
Medals: 52
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (6) Tournament Contribution (1)
General Contribution (7)

Re: CEO salaries, corporate power and employees

Postby Juan_Bottom on Wed Feb 06, 2013 11:20 pm

Thank-You Stahr for the protip!
I did not know that New Balance was made in the US! I'm definitely going to take a look at their shoes when I get a new pair of runners for spring.

Some important items, like shoes for example, I would be perfectly ok with someone buying foreign-made goods, so long as it's an issue of quality. My own hiking boots are English-made, but they are absolutely top-tier. In a survival situation, that quality is important. But when folks are saving $.30 by buying Mexican Orange-Juice that always bothers me. There's nothing wrong with Mexican labor or juice, I'd just like to see you spend $.30 to keep your neighbors employed. You kinda lose your creditably to me when you complain about the economy or whatever and you're buying foriegn first.


EDIT: I take that back, my hiking boots are Italian. And yes, expensive.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1102
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!
Medals: 21
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (2)
Clan Achievement (3)

Re: CEO salaries, corporate power and employees

Postby PLAYER57832 on Thu Feb 07, 2013 7:11 am

Juan_Bottom wrote:Thank-You Stahr for the protip!
I did not know that New Balance was made in the US! I'm definitely going to take a look at their shoes when I get a new pair of runners for spring.

Some important items, like shoes for example, I would be perfectly ok with someone buying foreign-made goods, so long as it's an issue of quality. My own hiking boots are English-made, but they are absolutely top-tier. In a survival situation, that quality is important. But when folks are saving $.30 by buying Mexican Orange-Juice that always bothers me. There's nothing wrong with Mexican labor or juice, I'd just like to see you spend $.30 to keep your neighbors employed. You kinda lose your creditably to me when you complain about the economy or whatever and you're buying foriegn first.


EDIT: I take that back, my hiking boots are Italian. And yes, expensive.


Its worse than that, because often a big reason for companies going overseas is to avoid clean manufacturing and safe worker rules. So, its not just that we get poor quality, move money into the hands of a few wealthy people more and more at the expense of average folks, we also add to future generations problems in multitude.... and yet, folks are ignorant enough to claim its "progress".
Sergeant PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2324
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: CEO salaries, corporate power and employees

Postby thegreekdog on Thu Feb 07, 2013 11:02 am

stahrgazer wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
stahrgazer wrote:It's not a "bogus fact," it's a real fact.

It's a US company that got big enough to go "overseas" at all because of US Government contracts, so it's "wrong" morally/patriotically, even if it's currently "Legal." But man the stinkum that Obama wants to close those loopholes and go after taxes for US companies' foreign assets (like our nation used to do.)

Personally I'd like to see trade tariffs on imports reinstated to re-equalize the balance, making it more profitable to employ people here to make things to export than to do the reverse.


I'm not really sure what to make of this part. It's a bogus fact because it's used to justify discussions about General Electric not paying it's fair share (whatever that may be). If the people that like to use such statistics bothered to report the entirety of tax paid by General Electric, they might understand that GE is paying it's fair share (whatever that may be). If people that like to use such statistics had any sense, they would realize that their outrage is better served by being directed at Congress and the president, and not at the company itself. And patriotism? Do you pay more taxes than you are legally required to pay? Would you purchase stock in a company that pays more taxes than they are legally required to pay? Would you work for a company knowing that your salary would be lower if the company paid more taxes than it legally had to pay? If you answer yes to any of those questions, you're lying.

I don't disagree that there are things that can be done to the current tax code that would force companies to pay more in taxes. What I disagree with is the characterization that paying more taxes than is legally required has to do with morality. And I also disagree with your characterization of the president as someone who wants to close loopholes. He just recently signed an extension of various tax incentives for big business, while at the same time raising taxes on all individual Americans. So stop with that "Obama wants to close loopholes" nonsense. Obama doesn't want to close loopholes. And they aren't loopholes when they are purposefully placed in the tax code by Congress.

stahrgazer wrote:It'd sure help ensure that our nation's defenses can be done properly.


No kidding.

stahrgazer wrote:I'd like to see a system that bases a product on its cost to make, not on "whatever the fools will pay." We do it in times of emergency (price gouging after a hurricane, etc., is a felony offense) and if we stopped that, the companies wouldn't go make things overseas for peanuts, to sell it here at prices just as though they were made here (Nike vs. New Balance, for example) which means CEO salaries would naturally be less.


Do you have an i-phone or similar device? How much money did you pay for it?

I purchased an i-phone for $300. How much would the device have cost if Apple manufactured the device and all of its attendant parts in the United States? Would that have influenced my decision to purchase the i-phone?

It's great to want US companies to manufacture in the United States and it's great that we want people to have jobs. But all those people that now have jobs wouldn't be able to afford the product and you wouldn't either because the costs would be too high. And trust me, the CEO taking a $10 million cut in pay isn't going to make up for that cost.

The problem with jobs going overseas has to do directly with US taxation, US regulations, and US employment laws. I'm not saying we should or need to change any of that stuff, but if you're suggesting we do change these things, think about the relative cost to US consumers.


No, I don't have an i-phone and wont because they're not manufactured in the US but they charge as though they are.

Review the costs in your stores of Nike and Reebok vs. New Balance. New Balance is made in the US.
Here's one at random.

Minimus 10 Trail
4.9 / 5
4.9 / 5
Open Ratings Snapshot
Read all reviews
Write a review
Women's Running
- Style# WT10BL
$79.99

Here's a Nike, not made in the US, cheapest one I saw:

NIKE FREE RUN+ 3
Women's Running Shoe
$100

Here's a Reebok, also not made in the US
ZigLite Electrify
(7)
$99.99 reg $69.99 sale
More Colors


$69.99 on sale or $99.99/100.00 for a non-US shoe vs. 79.99 for a US shoe that's frequently recommended by podiatrists (foot docs, who should know what's best for feet) over the non-US brands.

Tell me again that the cost of a product made in the US would be substantially higher. :lol:

p.s. it's still not a "bogus fact" that with all the money GE, a supposedly US company makes, it pays nil in taxes. And yes, I do blame Congress for being so bought-and-paid-for by corporations that they put those taxcodes in that favor foreign rather than domestic investment while eliminating the tariffs that would make up the difference to keep our country healthily employed.


So I've used one example and you've used one example. Do they offset? I don't buy Nikes because they are too expensive, regardless of where the sneakers are manufactured. I have an old paid of And One sneakers (mostly for sentimental value and because I regularly play basketball). My dress shoes tend to be whatever is available because I wear size 14 shoes which is a difficult size to find dress shoes for.

Why do I use these examples? Because there are a number of reasons why people do and do not purchase products. One of those reasons is that they are or are not made in the United States. One of those reasons is that a product may be cheaper because it is manufactured overseas. And another reason is that the product has the brand name "Nike" on it and is therefore a status symbol.

So if Nike shoes (or iphones) were manufactured in the United States while carrying the same brand name, they would be more expensive, no? Matt Parker, Nike's chief executive, made $11 million in 2011 and $35 million in 2012. How much do you think he should be paid? If he is paid $2 million, which would be a decrease of $9 million in 2011 and $33 million in 2012, how many more American jobs would have been created? How much cheaper would the shoes be?

The point I'm trying to make is that the angst over corporate officer salaries is misplaced. It may anger you if Nike laid off 4,000 employees while Matt Parker made $35 million, but is the CEO's salary really the issue? Do you think those employees would have been retained? Do you think CEOs say "I'm going to lay off 4,000 employees so I can make $35 million?"

And, if you think that CEOs need to make less, what, again, is your solution? A law? A regulation? Do you want to convince more people to buy less from companies that "overpay" their corporate officers? Considering that OWS made the same points you were making, and yet purchased and used products from Nike and Apple, good luck with that.
Image
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 6217
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2) General Contribution (2)

Re: CEO salaries, corporate power and employees

Postby BigBallinStalin on Thu Feb 07, 2013 11:26 am

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:Thank-You Stahr for the protip!
I did not know that New Balance was made in the US! I'm definitely going to take a look at their shoes when I get a new pair of runners for spring.

Some important items, like shoes for example, I would be perfectly ok with someone buying foreign-made goods, so long as it's an issue of quality. My own hiking boots are English-made, but they are absolutely top-tier. In a survival situation, that quality is important. But when folks are saving $.30 by buying Mexican Orange-Juice that always bothers me. There's nothing wrong with Mexican labor or juice, I'd just like to see you spend $.30 to keep your neighbors employed. You kinda lose your creditably to me when you complain about the economy or whatever and you're buying foriegn first.


EDIT: I take that back, my hiking boots are Italian. And yes, expensive.


Its worse than that, because often a big reason for companies going overseas is to avoid clean manufacturing and safe worker rules. So, its not just that we get poor quality, move money into the hands of a few wealthy people more and more at the expense of average folks, we also add to future generations problems in multitude.... and yet, folks are ignorant enough to claim its "progress".


Yeah, cuz f*ck the poor foreign nationals.
User avatar
Colonel BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 3577
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: CEO salaries, corporate power and employees

Postby stahrgazer on Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:50 pm

Actually, greekdog, you haven't used an example. You've pretended to use one.

You are assuming the cost of keeping manufacturing within the United States would make your gadget too expensive.

My example suggests that regardless the cost to produce, you're paying pretty much the same as if it was manufactured in the U.S., especially if it was manufactured in a U.S. that still had a lot of manufacturing.

Need another example? This or another thread I explained how our defense industry is having to pay crazily to get parts "made in the USA" because most of the manufacturing was moved offshore so the CEO could get a crazy raise and bonus while the American worker suffered loss of job and the American consumer is stuck paying whatever that company decides to charge (like Nike and Reebok do despite their manufacturing costs are far less than similar or better products made in the USA.)
Image
User avatar
Captain stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...
Medals: 52
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (6) Tournament Contribution (1)
General Contribution (7)

Re: CEO salaries, corporate power and employees

Postby thegreekdog on Fri Feb 08, 2013 8:50 am

stahrgazer wrote:Actually, greekdog, you haven't used an example. You've pretended to use one.

You are assuming the cost of keeping manufacturing within the United States would make your gadget too expensive.

My example suggests that regardless the cost to produce, you're paying pretty much the same as if it was manufactured in the U.S., especially if it was manufactured in a U.S. that still had a lot of manufacturing.

Need another example? This or another thread I explained how our defense industry is having to pay crazily to get parts "made in the USA" because most of the manufacturing was moved offshore so the CEO could get a crazy raise and bonus while the American worker suffered loss of job and the American consumer is stuck paying whatever that company decides to charge (like Nike and Reebok do despite their manufacturing costs are far less than similar or better products made in the USA.)


I never assume.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/31/smallbu ... /index.htm
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... brand.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/201 ... all-wrong/
Image
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 6217
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2) General Contribution (2)

Re: CEO salaries, corporate power and employees

Postby Metsfanmax on Fri Feb 08, 2013 9:08 am

Juan_Bottom wrote:Thank-You Stahr for the protip!
I did not know that New Balance was made in the US! I'm definitely going to take a look at their shoes when I get a new pair of runners for spring.


I am a huge New Balance supporter. Besides the fact that they consistently make wide sizes for people with fat feet, like myself, and the consistently high quality of the shoes, they also make a few shoes that do not use animal products, which really matters to me.

Carry on.
User avatar
Lieutenant Metsfanmax
Head Thinker
Head Thinker
 
Posts: 3677
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Location: NY
Medals: 40
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (6) Clan Achievement (2)
General Contribution (5)

PreviousNext

Return to Whose Forum is It Anyway?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Koganosi, MudPuppy and 4 guests

Login