Entitlement - Standard of living (Alimony, ChildSupport)

[PLAYER57832]

Why do you think CEOs are paid so much money?

Given the many recent examples I've seen, I'm pretty sure it's because Boards of Directors are stupid fucks.

All of the above, and stockholders who care for nothing but making a short term dollar.

OR, to put it another way, a system that encourages absentee owners to take whatever profits they can, however they can and the boot out, leaving the workers and others to take the brunt.

If stockholders wanted to make a "short term dollar," why are they paying $20 million for a CEO?

Because they can make more than $20 million by laying of thousands of workers, selling of marginally profitable sections, or even unprofitable sections (never mind why they are unprofitable or that only a small investment could turn the section around). I get into more of that in the post I was writing (above) when you posted this.


However, let me ask you something else, related to your earlier comment that no one has a "right" to a specific wage... even just a wage that ensures they can live without government subsidies.

Not only does this mean you are able to hire workers who actually cost we taxpayers money, but what kind of incentive does such low wages give to people. Don't you think that might have something to do with the rise of what you call "lazy people".

In fact, it does. Talk to any recent graduate, and you find that they have a much poorer attitude about the future. As a result, they are far less willing to sacrafice "for the company", or to accept the dictates many old-time bosses take for granted. Just as an example, not ONE of the companies here locally offers sick leave. What they call sick pay is something like $100 a week... for someone who was making $18 an hour, and that only with some serious doctor verification, being let off for more than 2 weeks, etc. Also, you can be asked to work a second shift (in a non-union plant) with no choice. Have children at home? too bad.. good reason not to hire you! Too tired to work a double? Again.. good reason to let you go.

and note, I am talking about good jobs, there!

Try finding out what its like at Dollar General, Sheetz, etc.....

[PLAYER57832]

Whoa...somebody seriously fucked up the quote-machine here.

True, but this time it wasn't me. I did, however fail to check that the quotes were correct before I copied . (so I am still guilty...)

[thegreekdog]

None of that makes sense Player. I honestly don't know why they pay $20 million for a CEO (so perhaps someone else can enlighten me). However, it's certainly not easier to lay off people or sell unprofitable businesses (the latter is very hard to do).

[BigBallinStalin]

None of that makes sense Player. I honestly don't know why they pay $20 million for a CEO (so perhaps someone else can enlighten me). However, it's certainly not easier to lay off people or sell unprofitable businesses (the latter is very hard to do).

There are very few people in the world who are capable and willing to perform the tasks a CEO can, which explains why their labor is so highly valued.

Nevertheless, many CEOs aren't good at being a CEO, but they can only discover that when they actually become a CEO. On average, about 33% within 1-2 years get fired, and usually it's for short-term, poor performance measured by the quarter (instead of longer term assessments, but that really depends on the company).

Very few people can successfully perform this extraordinarily difficult job. The CEO is the helmsman between the external environment and the internal organization (the business). He has to deal with many, many people both internal and external, and he has to make many extremely difficult decisions.

That's why I think CEOs are paid so highly.

[BigBallinStalin]

Why do you think CEOs are paid so much money?

Given the many recent examples I've seen, I'm pretty sure it's because Boards of Directors are stupid fucks.

All of the above, and stockholders who care for nothing but making a short term dollar.

OR, to put it another way, a system that encourages absentee owners to take whatever profits they can, however they can and the boot out, leaving the workers and others to take the brunt.

If stockholders wanted to make a "short term dollar," why are they paying $20 million for a CEO?[/quote] Because they can make more than $20 million by laying of thousands of workers, selling of marginally profitable sections, or even unprofitable sections (never mind why they are unprofitable or that only a small investment could turn the section around). I get into more of that in the post I was writing (above) when you posted this.

.

You're only looking at one of three primary strategies. You're talking about entrenchment, which involves saving the company through cutting expenses (via future investements, selling parts of the company portfolio, and/or laying off people). The tasks vary from CEO to CEO and from situation to situation.


CEOs are also involved in making decisions for aggressively expanding or defending one's current position within the market. Expansion means taking on risks and providing more jobs, and defense is basically maintaining the status quo. It depends, but it definitely isn't as one-way as you have portrayed.

[thegreekdog]

Because they can make more than $20 million by laying of thousands of workers, selling of marginally profitable sections, or even unprofitable sections (never mind why they are unprofitable or that only a small investment could turn the section around). I get into more of that in the post I was writing (above) when you posted this.

This is a Player quote, not a BBS one, but if a company sells off an unprofitable or marginally profitable business unit, is someone buying it? The answer is yes. Thus, I'm not sure what you're trying to say Player.

Also - cutting employees cuts some costs in the short term, but is not a way to grow a business's profits.

Also also - if a business unit is doing poorly, there is a smaller demand for widgets, and the CEO doesn't fire some employees, the company does poorly and everyone loses (current employees, shareholders, the CEO).

[keiths31]

Also, long-term deadbeat dads should be hunted down and shot. I'm not really kidding either.

What if they are deadbeats because they are on drugs? No leniency?

Nope...no leniency. But they can collect welfare and spend it on drugs.

NEWSFLASH. Deadbeat dads cannot collect welfare or much of any other government assistance. That said, if they are not making money, they can sometimes get legal exemptions, but judges tend to be pretty strict on that... much more than in any other case. You can call someone who is liad off or injured "deadbeat" because they don't make the same payments, but most people consider that in a different category. Most people consider deadbeats to be those who are legally supposed to make payments and do not or who pretend excuses , maybe even take a lower paying job, in order to pay less.

Are you even reading before quoting and going on a rant? You took three sarcastic joke quotes and turned it into a full blown "look-at-me-show". Relax.

[Woodruff]

None of that makes sense Player. I honestly don't know why they pay $20 million for a CEO (so perhaps someone else can enlighten me). However, it's certainly not easier to lay off people or sell unprofitable businesses (the latter is very hard to do).

There are very few people in the world who are capable and willing to perform the tasks a CEO can, which explains why their labor is so highly valued.

Nevertheless, many CEOs aren't good at being a CEO, but they can only discover that when they actually become a CEO. On average, about 33% within 1-2 years get fired, and usually it's for short-term, poor performance measured by the quarter (instead of longer term assessments, but that really depends on the company).

Very few people can successfully perform this extraordinarily difficult job. The CEO is the helmsman between the external environment and the internal organization (the business). He has to deal with many, many people both internal and external, and he has to make many extremely difficult decisions.

That's why I think CEOs are paid so highly.

Everything you've said here put together tells me that my answer above was precisely correct.

[PLAYER57832]

You're only looking at one of three primary strategies. You're talking about entrenchment, which involves saving the company through cutting expenses (via future investements, selling parts of the company portfolio, and/or laying off people). The tasks vary from CEO to CEO and from situation to situation.

I never claimed to give a full rundown. In fact, I believe I said that some do earn their pay. None-the less, what angers so many people is that many DO get such exhorbitant paychecks for things that are very bad for the country. Only some of those decisions are really good for the companies involved, which REALLY angers people.

Around here, we have gone through multiple plant closures, union busting actions, etc etc. Yet, many of the head corporations are still getting tax breaks, the CEOs etc are getting bonuses... it stinks!

CEOs are also involved in making decisions for aggressively expanding or defending one's current position within the market. Expansion means taking on risks and providing more jobs, and defense is basically maintaining the status quo. It depends, but it definitely isn't as one-way as you have portrayed.

See, here is where I really disagree with yuo. I am not sure were the idea that taking a risk was somehow more worthwhile than plain and simple hard work, but that is something you have touted over and over. That might make "sense" per today's standards, but it is not the way to get people or companies to do things that benefit the nation.

And, at some point, if we are to continue to have a nation our leaders need to stop worrying so much about what the CEOs, etc of what these companies want for their personnal gain and instead think about what is best for the rest of the nation, because they are most definitely NOT always the same.... and if the past 30 years have proved anything, it is that trickle down does not work.

[PLAYER57832]

Because they can make more than $20 million by laying of thousands of workers, selling of marginally profitable sections, or even unprofitable sections (never mind why they are unprofitable or that only a small investment could turn the section around). I get into more of that in the post I was writing (above) when you posted this.

This is a Player quote, not a BBS one, but if a company sells off an unprofitable or marginally profitable business unit, is someone buying it? The answer is yes. Thus, I'm not sure what you're trying to say Player.

I don't entirely "get" why myself, but I just see it happening... and have heard enough economists talk about it to know its true, even if I don't get into all the nitty grittys.

The cases I know well (Horowitz takeover of Maxxam, for example) are slightly different. He staged a hostile takeover, then to finance the takeover began cutting timber at a very high rate, so that instead of 50 years cut left, suddenly there was only 2. There was a minor boom, but then several entire towns died because they lost the steady support (there was a lot involved, and other impacts, but anyway.. getting off topic).

One thing is that if they sell off assets, they can get an immediate cash boost. And, depending on how they structure things, it can make a company look like it is making a big profit even when it isn't. Some of the stuff done is illegal, some is plain stupid. The point is our tax system goes a long way toward supporting the system. As a minimum, it penallizing all the small fry and lets the big guys take left and right.

Also - cutting employees cuts some costs in the short term, but is not a way to grow a business's profits.

EXACTLY! However, since the short term is all that matters to most stockholders, even CEOs... bingo!

Also, this ties in with the above. The truth is that while it is relatively difficult to lay off individual employees, it is muche easier to lay off several hundred or thousand workers by closing entire departments or factories.

The thing is modern CEOs are not really trained to keep businesses going for the very long term... and "very long term" for a business now is about 20 years. (long term is 5 years).

Also also - if a business unit is doing poorly, there is a smaller demand for widgets, and the CEO doesn't fire some employees, the company does poorly and everyone loses (current employees, shareholders, the CEO).

By that time, the CEO is gone and most of the original shareholders have sold out. Except, I am often not talking about even business units that are necessarily doing poorly, they just are not doing things quite as cheaply as they can be done in China or Brazil. And, when the CEO is making that decision, he doesn't really even have to consider that by laying off all those workers he is taking tax dollars from the US. Sure, he will cry tears, but he will think more about those he is hiring in Brazil or China and justify things to himself by saying the US workers were just too demanding or will get jobs elsewhere, etc.

The last time businesses had such a free decision making hand in the US was around the turn of the century. We may not go exactly back to the days of The Jungle, etc. but we sure won't be returning to anything like the prosperity and emerging equal opportunities of the 50's and 60's.

[BigBallinStalin]

CEOs are also involved in making decisions for aggressively expanding or defending one's current position within the market. Expansion means taking on risks and providing more jobs, and defense is basically maintaining the status quo. It depends, but it definitely isn't as one-way as you have portrayed.

See, here is where I really disagree with yuo. I am not sure were the idea that taking a risk was somehow more worthwhile than plain and simple hard work, but that is something you have touted over and over. That might make "sense" per today's standards, but it is not the way to get people or companies to do things that benefit the nation.

What is "plan and simple hard work"?

And what's wrong with taking risks? Everyone takes risks all the time--hopefully, with the intention of making a profit. This includes making investments (taking loans) for education in order to profit from that knowledge in whatever field of their choice, which is also a risk. And profit alone isn't just money--it's satisfaction, it's happiness, it's the positive gains after incurring the costs.


If you can think of a better system does not that rely on profit-and-loss incentives, then I'd be glad to hear it.

And, at some point, if we are to continue to have a nation our leaders need to stop worrying so much about what the CEOs, etc of what these companies want for their personnal gain and instead think about what is best for the rest of the nation, because they are most definitely NOT always the same.... and if the past 30 years have proved anything, it is that trickle down does not work.

So, what's best for the nation, according to you?