CEO Salaries and the inalienable right to be stupid

[BigBallinStalin]

Result: massive unemployment, claims of a 1% vs. a 99% (percentages may be slightly off but the idea is accurate,) and an economic system of insurance against starvation (foodstamps, welfare) that is collapsing under the weight of too-many-claims... claims that would not be made if these CEOs took a less narcissistic and more humanistic and patriotic approach to their own and their board-of-director-buddies-in-other-companies' salaries.

Wait, so somehow the CEOs, and only those big-bad corporations with CEOs, are responsible for "too many" claims on government-provided welfare...

Weird, I could've thought that the government's extending UE benefits "insurance" for roughly 2 years caused the prolonged use of its services...

[stahrgazer]

Result: massive unemployment, claims of a 1% vs. a 99% (percentages may be slightly off but the idea is accurate,) and an economic system of insurance against starvation (foodstamps, welfare) that is collapsing under the weight of too-many-claims... claims that would not be made if these CEOs took a less narcissistic and more humanistic and patriotic approach to their own and their board-of-director-buddies-in-other-companies' salaries.

Wait, so somehow the CEOs, and only those big-bad corporations with CEOs, are responsible for "too many" claims on government-provided welfare...

Weird, I could've thought that the government's extending UE benefits "insurance" for roughly 2 years caused the prolonged use of its services...

Only needed because of the cause: too many folks laid off..... most frequently, to pad CEO pockets; and not hiring because those poor CEOs need to keep their bonuses.

[BigBallinStalin]

Result: massive unemployment, claims of a 1% vs. a 99% (percentages may be slightly off but the idea is accurate,) and an economic system of insurance against starvation (foodstamps, welfare) that is collapsing under the weight of too-many-claims... claims that would not be made if these CEOs took a less narcissistic and more humanistic and patriotic approach to their own and their board-of-director-buddies-in-other-companies' salaries.

Wait, so somehow the CEOs, and only those big-bad corporations with CEOs, are responsible for "too many" claims on government-provided welfare...

Weird, I could've thought that the government's extending UE benefits "insurance" for roughly 2 years caused the prolonged use of its services...

Only needed because of the cause: too many folks laid off..... most frequently, to pad CEO pockets; and not hiring because those poor CEOs need to keep their bonuses.

What causes unemployment?

[PLAYER57832]

Result: massive unemployment, claims of a 1% vs. a 99% (percentages may be slightly off but the idea is accurate,) and an economic system of insurance against starvation (foodstamps, welfare) that is collapsing under the weight of too-many-claims... claims that would not be made if these CEOs took a less narcissistic and more humanistic and patriotic approach to their own and their board-of-director-buddies-in-other-companies' salaries.

Wait, so somehow the CEOs, and only those big-bad corporations with CEOs, are responsible for "too many" claims on government-provided welfare...

Weird, I could've thought that the government's extending UE benefits "insurance" for roughly 2 years caused the prolonged use of its services...

Only needed because of the cause: too many folks laid off..... most frequently, to pad CEO pockets; and not hiring because those poor CEOs need to keep their bonuses.

What causes unemployment?

In this country, its mostly CEOs deciding that paying citizen employees decent wages is "too expensive"... along with moving various financial assets offshore to avoid paying taxes and other expenses normally inherent in doing business.

When you have the biggest players neatly avoiding payment, the system is bound to crash. That average people were tossed a few bones to make it seem as if that avoidance largess was being passed around is really a moot point, nothing more than a pawn play in the game.

[BigBallinStalin]

Result: massive unemployment, claims of a 1% vs. a 99% (percentages may be slightly off but the idea is accurate,) and an economic system of insurance against starvation (foodstamps, welfare) that is collapsing under the weight of too-many-claims... claims that would not be made if these CEOs took a less narcissistic and more humanistic and patriotic approach to their own and their board-of-director-buddies-in-other-companies' salaries.

Wait, so somehow the CEOs, and only those big-bad corporations with CEOs, are responsible for "too many" claims on government-provided welfare...

Weird, I could've thought that the government's extending UE benefits "insurance" for roughly 2 years caused the prolonged use of its services...

Only needed because of the cause: too many folks laid off..... most frequently, to pad CEO pockets; and not hiring because those poor CEOs need to keep their bonuses.

What causes unemployment?

In this country, its mostly CEOs deciding that paying citizen employees decent wages is "too expensive"... along with moving various financial assets offshore to avoid paying taxes and other expenses normally inherent in doing business.

When you have the biggest players neatly avoiding payment, the system is bound to crash. That average people were tossed a few bones to make it seem as if that avoidance largess was being passed around is really a moot point, nothing more than a pawn play in the game.

I didn't ask you because I knew you'd get this wrong.


Go play in the pit with those plastic balls please.

[GBU56]

I agree with all of that, except the following:

No government, no power on earth can take that away from you.

I think we learned from 2008 to about 2010, that government can take away the ability for a company to fail. And probably before that too, but I'm too lazy.

I said that was the right to be stupid, not the right to fail. Governments really can't do much for a totally stupid company either, unless they remove the stupid, they only have so much money to throw into the money pit of stupidity. Of course not all companies are completely stupid, so GM had parts that were trying to rise above it all while at the same time the company was trying to sell the garbage that was the Volt.

You can't compare one product 'Volt" and say ,"Lookie here, this company is a failure."

GM was saved by government intervention and now GM is doing fine...thank you.

Volt was a rallying cry against GM for the rightwing neo-cons, since GM has collective bargaining thus a target against Unions.

[GBU56]

Result: massive unemployment, claims of a 1% vs. a 99% (percentages may be slightly off but the idea is accurate,) and an economic system of insurance against starvation (foodstamps, welfare) that is collapsing under the weight of too-many-claims... claims that would not be made if these CEOs took a less narcissistic and more humanistic and patriotic approach to their own and their board-of-director-buddies-in-other-companies' salaries.

Wait, so somehow the CEOs, and only those big-bad corporations with CEOs, are responsible for "too many" claims on government-provided welfare...

Weird, I could've thought that the government's extending UE benefits "insurance" for roughly 2 years caused the prolonged use of its services...

Only needed because of the cause: too many folks laid off..... most frequently, to pad CEO pockets; and not hiring because those poor CEOs need to keep their bonuses.

What causes unemployment?

The Depression aka very bad recession aka huge unemployement, was caused by gambling and outright thievery of the mighty Wall Street Banks.

[tzor]

What causes unemployment?

Supply and demand.

Too many workers chasing too few jobs.

[tzor]

GM was saved by government intervention and now GM is doing fine...thank you.

No it is not. The rot is still there; the cancer continues to grow and spread. GM is still dying; it will just take longer now.

[BigBallinStalin]

What causes unemployment?

Supply and demand.

Too many workers chasing too few jobs.

Hey, a surplus!

+100 saxbucks.

But why was there a surplus of workers?

[stahrgazer]

Result: massive unemployment, claims of a 1% vs. a 99% (percentages may be slightly off but the idea is accurate,) and an economic system of insurance against starvation (foodstamps, welfare) that is collapsing under the weight of too-many-claims... claims that would not be made if these CEOs took a less narcissistic and more humanistic and patriotic approach to their own and their board-of-director-buddies-in-other-companies' salaries.

Wait, so somehow the CEOs, and only those big-bad corporations with CEOs, are responsible for "too many" claims on government-provided welfare...

Weird, I could've thought that the government's extending UE benefits "insurance" for roughly 2 years caused the prolonged use of its services...

Only needed because of the cause: too many folks laid off..... most frequently, to pad CEO pockets; and not hiring because those poor CEOs need to keep their bonuses.

What causes unemployment?

Only needed because of the cause: too many folks laid off.... most frequently, to pad CEO pockets; and not hiring because those poor CEOs need to keep their bonuses.

[tzor]

Hey, a surplus!

Actually, it was a shortage. There are a number of reasons why there was and still is a shortage of jobs.

There are constant and increasing pressures on the creation of jobs. We generally call them "regulations."

When the whole credit crisis of 2008 hit banks stopped lending. Most business relies on lending; you must spend money to make a product to sell the product to pay the loan and the interest. Small businesses does that all the time and when the money stopped flowing the whole system started to collapse. Small businesses are the main engines for the job market. Big businesses have high number of employees but relatively low churn rates. Small businesses are the ones who are more than likely to double in size.

But that was years ago. Logic insists that the steeper the recession the steeper the recovery. That didn't happen but it takes massive forces to keep the laws of economics down. Unfortunately we had those massive forces. Huge so called "Stimulus" spending caused the federal government to take money from the bond market used to fuel private corporation borrowing; this combined with the residual fear of banks to lend in the first place created a problem so big that people left the workforce all together. (Thus the official unemployment number is a POS.)

2012 was a slight recovery year; but Obama Care kicks in now and well, that's basically a dagger to the chest to all small businesses in the country.

Too bad, you're screwed. Hey let's raise the minimum wage while we are at it. ..... Opps we just flat-lined the economy.

[thegreekdog]

too many folks laid off.... most frequently, to pad CEO pockets

You still haven't answered how this is possible. If the average CEO compensation is $12.94 million in 2012 (see below), how much do you think CEOs should make, on average, to ensure, under your theory, that we don't have higher unemployment?

http://www.aflcio.org/Corporate-Watch/C ... and-the-99

There are some nice pictures there so feel free to use them (or I suppose Juan can use them).

Furthermore, CEO compensation is determined by the board of directors. The board of directors is chosen by shareholders. Shareholders are interested in increasing the company's income. Why would the shareholders or the board of directors want to lay off people unless it was better for the company's bottom line? In other words, if a company could make more money with more workers and if you theory about CEO pay is true, why would the shareholders of that company think it is okay if the CEO fires workers (therefore making the company less money) while increasing his own compensation (which also makes the company less money)?

[BigBallinStalin]

Hey, a surplus!

Actually, it was a shortage. There are a number of reasons why there was and still is a shortage of jobs.

There are constant and increasing pressures on the creation of jobs. We generally call them "regulations."

When the whole credit crisis of 2008 hit banks stopped lending. Most business relies on lending; you must spend money to make a product to sell the product to pay the loan and the interest. Small businesses does that all the time and when the money stopped flowing the whole system started to collapse. Small businesses are the main engines for the job market. Big businesses have high number of employees but relatively low churn rates. Small businesses are the ones who are more than likely to double in size.

But that was years ago. Logic insists that the steeper the recession the steeper the recovery. That didn't happen but it takes massive forces to keep the laws of economics down. Unfortunately we had those massive forces. Huge so called "Stimulus" spending caused the federal government to take money from the bond market used to fuel private corporation borrowing; this combined with the residual fear of banks to lend in the first place created a problem so big that people left the workforce all together. (Thus the official unemployment number is a POS.)

2012 was a slight recovery year; but Obama Care kicks in now and well, that's basically a dagger to the chest to all small businesses in the country.

Too bad, you're screwed. Hey let's raise the minimum wage while we are at it. ..... Opps we just flat-lined the economy.

Surplus. There's too many jobs supplied at the price offered by demanders. You get a surplus--like cheese, or 2 liter colas. Too many on the shelves, doing nothing. The amount which doesn't clear is what remains--e.g. the unemployed.

If there was a shortage in the jobs supplied, then the price is too low. The supply of jobs is not enough to meet the demand (e.g. employers). You'd have to import the job suppliers (employees) at this point--which isn't happening.

[BigBallinStalin]

Result: massive unemployment, claims of a 1% vs. a 99% (percentages may be slightly off but the idea is accurate,) and an economic system of insurance against starvation (foodstamps, welfare) that is collapsing under the weight of too-many-claims... claims that would not be made if these CEOs took a less narcissistic and more humanistic and patriotic approach to their own and their board-of-director-buddies-in-other-companies' salaries.

Wait, so somehow the CEOs, and only those big-bad corporations with CEOs, are responsible for "too many" claims on government-provided welfare...

Weird, I could've thought that the government's extending UE benefits "insurance" for roughly 2 years caused the prolonged use of its services...

Only needed because of the cause: too many folks laid off..... most frequently, to pad CEO pockets; and not hiring because those poor CEOs need to keep their bonuses.

What causes unemployment?

Only needed because of the cause: too many folks laid off.... most frequently, to pad CEO pockets; and not hiring because those poor CEOs need to keep their bonuses.

Gee, so places without CEOs never experience lay offs?