CEO Salaries and the inalienable right to be stupid

[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?

[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.

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


Go play in the pit with those plastic balls please.

Arrogance doesn't make you smart, nor does having agreement of a lot of people with power make you correct.

And that you and many others seem to think it does is why we are in this mess.

[BigBallinStalin]

Arrogance doesn't make you smart, nor does having agreement of a lot of people with power make you correct.

And that you and many others seem to think it does is why we are in this mess.

You have a history of (1) talking about things you don't understand, (2) going on irrelevant tangents, (3) and refusing to acknowledge the limits of your 'knowledge', so I'm not going to take you seriously.

Since you're as knowledgeable about economics as Viceroy is about evolution--and just as presumptuous, then obviously I shouldn't bother conversing with you.

Off to the plastic ball pit you go!


PLAYER: "Classic BBS! blah blah blahb lah blahb lahb albha blah!" <furiously scatters the plastic balls>

[PLAYER57832]

Arrogance doesn't make you smart, nor does having agreement of a lot of people with power make you correct.

And that you and many others seem to think it does is why we are in this mess.

You have a history of (1) talking about things you don't understand, (2) going on irrelevant tangents, (3) and refusing to acknowledge the limits of your 'knowledge', so I'm not going to take you seriously.

Since you're as knowledgeable about economics as Viceroy is about evolution--and just as presumptuous, then obviously I shouldn't bother conversing with you.

Off to the plastic ball pit you go!


PLAYER: "Classic BBS! blah blah blahb lah blahb lahb albha blah!" <furiously scatters the plastic balls>

The trouble is, my predictive knowledge of ecomics is better than that of many proclaimed economists.

Any idiot should have been able to see the mortgage problems years before it happened, yet suddenly it was "big news" and you are among those still proclaiming some kind of mystery over how it happened.

You make a lot of similar errors.. .so go ahead and pretend you know more of what you speak, while ignoring whole areas of knowledge that happen to impact "your" field more than those wonderful behavior-based statistics upon which you rely.

People can and do adapt. Nature is very limited by comparison. The weather is not controlled at all as of yet. Each of these has far more impact on the real world profits and losses, job markets and production than your touted behavior based statistics called "economics"

[BigBallinStalin]

Arrogance doesn't make you smart, nor does having agreement of a lot of people with power make you correct.

And that you and many others seem to think it does is why we are in this mess.

You have a history of (1) talking about things you don't understand, (2) going on irrelevant tangents, (3) and refusing to acknowledge the limits of your 'knowledge', so I'm not going to take you seriously.

Since you're as knowledgeable about economics as Viceroy is about evolution--and just as presumptuous, then obviously I shouldn't bother conversing with you.

Off to the plastic ball pit you go!


PLAYER: "Classic BBS! blah blah blahb lah blahb lahb albha blah!" <furiously scatters the plastic balls>

The trouble is, my predictive knowledge of ecomics is better than that of many proclaimed economists.

Any idiot should have been able to see the mortgage problems years before it happened, yet suddenly it was "big news" and you are among those still proclaiming some kind of mystery over how it happened.

You make a lot of similar errors.. .so go ahead and pretend you know more of what you speak, while ignoring whole areas of knowledge that happen to impact "your" field more than those wonderful behavior-based statistics upon which you rely.

People can and do adapt. Nature is very limited by comparison. The weather is not controlled at all as of yet. Each of these has far more impact on the real world profits and losses, job markets and production than your touted behavior based statistics called "economics"

Please stay on topic. Your post belongs in this thread.

[tzor]

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.

I hate to break the news to you bit the average shareholder is like your average voter; little, if any, due diligence, and a tendency to gut check voting decisions. Besides, the shareholders generally approve or reject the nomination suggestions of the board (generally without any knowledge of the people being nominated) and it is very rare that you would see those recommendations rejected.

My life experience has allowed me to look into the corporate mind. It's fairly intelligent, but it's like Hillary Clinton, bureaucratic and narrow minded in focus. It is far too easy to get lost in the numbers, or to follow the latest trend one read in a corporate executive magazine. I've seen companies rush headlong into the whole "third party offshore" idea only to find that not only did they loose control in the process, they could never guarantee the third party had dedicated resources to their tasks and the time differential was a major hidden cost factor in supervising a third party contractor. They all thought they were cutting costs and wound up costing more revenue than costs.

This brings me back to the title that I created, the "inalienable right to be stupid." Smart shareholders will sell while the stock is still high. Good employees will leave taking their skills to the competition. Sometimes a company in free fall will see the light, change and rise from the ashes. A good recent example is the Facebook game company Zynga; after a lot of people jumped ship it has managed to boost its share price considerably.

This is why, in opposition to everything a liberal holds dear, the free market is the best example of a system that works for the well being of the workers. If you are not constantly getting better, someone else will come along and take you over. IBM yielded to Microsoft who in turn yielded to Apple. It is the best example of survival of the fittest we have and it tends to produce the best companies and the best value to the employees.

[thegreekdog]

I hate to break the news to you bit the average shareholder is like your average voter; little, if any, due diligence, and a tendency to gut check voting decisions. Besides, the shareholders generally approve or reject the nomination suggestions of the board (generally without any knowledge of the people being nominated) and it is very rare that you would see those recommendations rejected.

It depends on the shareholder. For your average Joe Sixpack, your statement is likely true. But there are large and interested and intelligent funds that hold stock in major companies. They are like the special interest groups of corporations (maybe).

[PLAYER57832]

I hate to break the news to you bit the average shareholder is like your average voter; little, if any, due diligence, and a tendency to gut check voting decisions. Besides, the shareholders generally approve or reject the nomination suggestions of the board (generally without any knowledge of the people being nominated) and it is very rare that you would see those recommendations rejected.

It depends on the shareholder. For your average Joe Sixpack, your statement is likely true. But there are large and interested and intelligent funds that hold stock in major companies. They are like the special interest groups of corporations (maybe).

If you consider short-term profits to be a good judge of anything.

The problem is, history shows they are not.

[thegreekdog]

I hate to break the news to you bit the average shareholder is like your average voter; little, if any, due diligence, and a tendency to gut check voting decisions. Besides, the shareholders generally approve or reject the nomination suggestions of the board (generally without any knowledge of the people being nominated) and it is very rare that you would see those recommendations rejected.

It depends on the shareholder. For your average Joe Sixpack, your statement is likely true. But there are large and interested and intelligent funds that hold stock in major companies. They are like the special interest groups of corporations (maybe).

If you consider short-term profits to be a good judge of anything.

The problem is, history shows they are not.

I don't even know what you mean.