AnonymousIV
Member
- May 18, 2011
- 297
- 17
- 16
Pay teachers decent salaries and there will be less average workers. You expect so much of the American people, and in turn, we have expectations. Why does that seem unreasonable?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Pay teachers decent salaries and there will be less average workers. You expect so much of the American people, and in turn, we have expectations. Why does that seem unreasonable?
Average workers are nothing special, who the fuck cares what they earn?
My advice to you,I showed you that 5 years ago it was 200 times more than the average employee and now its 320 times. But the average worker hasn't gotten a raise in 30 years.
At what point will you agree that maybe the workers should get a raise? Just curious.
Don't be an average worker.
The CEO's are literally skimming profits first. Does his leadership or the average worker's trade create the profit? I think that is the question, not spending on poverty. I mean can't CEO's see they need to be more ingratiating? Will there pay continue to skyrocket? Somewhere these guys need to come back to reality. I mean there is compensation for intelligence, sure, and leadership sure. But, they are over the top. And I vote to the right.
Wiseacre sometimes pride
Lehman Bros. Richard Fuld, $40 million.
Merrill Lynchs Stanley ONeal, $46 million.
Bear Stearns' James Cayne, $40 million.
Freddie Macs Richard Syron, just shy of $20 million.
Fannie Maes Daniel Mudd, $12.2 million.
As the nations financial system was crumbling, the CEOs who were in charge of the most troubled financial firms pocketed fat paychecks during their final full year on the job and that doesnt include the golden parachutes they got when they walked away.
Public outrage over this disconnect has caused Congress to step in and try to do something about skyrocketing executive compensation. But history shows that government attempts have been weak, at best, when it comes to curtailing CEO riches.
Why? Because regulators never go far enough in giving shareholders a true voice. Its difficult to break up entrenched boards of directors that make the decisions on executive compensation.
Even the $700 billion bailout package that is fighting for life on Capitol Hill doesnt have the teeth to put a lid on these financial windfalls, experts say.
Over the past two decades, efforts by government officials to rein in the big payouts, including changes to the tax code and calls for more oversight, have actually contributed to the growth in CEO pay now 275 times the salary of the average working stiff, according to the Economic Policy Institute.
Government regulators are notoriously ineffective at reining in pay, and oftentimes the unintended consequences caused greater problems, says Charles Elson, an expert on corporate governance at the University of Delaware.
Lets go back to the mid-1980s when the public also was outraged about executives getting huge payouts as a result of the merger mania at the time. The government and investors wanted to make sure managers were selling companies because it was financially prudent, not because they would walk away with huge severance packages.
These concerns resulted in a 1986 change in the tax code creating a penalty tax on excessive golden parachute payments more than three times an executive's base pay.
What happened after that, says Steve Van Putten, a senior executive pay consultant for Watson Wyatt in Boston, was that companies started paying this penalty tax for executives, a process called grossing up. And the three-times base pay limit became the standard for many parachutes that were once well below that.
In 1992, the Securities and Exchange Commission introduced proxy disclosure rules taking information about executive compensation that was once narrative and thin on numerical values, and putting actual numbers out there for all to see.
It became very transparent, and a CEO at one company could see what another was making so theyd say, Hey, I want to be making that, says Van Putten.
The big change one that many compensation experts and shareholder advocates point to as a turning point that led to the obscene CEO paychecks were dealing with today came in 1993 with tax code provision 162(m) that limited tax deductibility for executive pay at $1 million. The exception to the rule was for pay that was considered performance-based compensation, like, you guessed it, stock options.
As a result, stock options have gone crazy, says Mel Fugate, assistant management professor at the Cox School of Business at Southern Methodist University. Under the rule, for example, a CEO could get $1 million in base pay and $400 million in stock options.
This focus on stock options created a volatile mix, boosting incentives for executives to make risky business moves in order to boost a companys stock price.
Thats exactly what has happened with the subprime mess that led to the downfall of so many old and established Wall Street firms.
Certainly, compensation practices at these companies have been a major contributor to the financial crisis, says Paul Hodgson, a senior analyst at the Corporate Library, an independent governance research organization.
Alas, government intervention thus far has been an unmitigated disaster, adds Alan Johnson, a compensation consultant. I would think if you went back 20 years or so, youd see its enriched consultants like me, lawyers, accountants. It was wasted time and money and didnt reduce pay. It was so poorly designed, so full of loopholes, and so silly.
So, what needs to be done to finally clamp down on CEO pay and incentives that encourage short-term gains, but do little for the long-term health of the nations corporations?
Can wild CEO pay be tamed? Probably not - Economy in Turmoil - MSNBC.com
Government's place in redistribution of wealth should be limited. That's not to say government should never do anything to encourage some redistribution. A situation in which either all capital is in the hands of the few or is equally distributed is certainly not beneficial to society. If capitalism is properly regulated, then neither extreme will occur.They are in unions idiot! Employees making a lot. You think I have a problem with that? Screen Actors Guild. Thank a union!
But I bet you did have a problem with NBA players making too much, right?
See, in a union, the CEO wouldn't make as much because the employees would get profit sharing. It wouldn't be "passed on to the consumer" either. That's just a lie they tell you.
In a free market, incomes and wealth are obtained through the sum of innumerable voluntary exchanges. As Robert Nozick calls it, capitalist acts between consenting adults.
a. Nozicks example: Now suppose that Wilt Chamberlain is greatly in demand by basketball teams, being a great gate attraction He signs the following sort of contract with a team: In each home game, twenty-five cents from the price of each ticket of admission goes to him The season starts, and people cheerfully attend his teams games; they buy their tickets, each time dropping a separate twenty-five cents of their admission price into a special box with Chamberlains name on it. They are excited about seeing him play; it is worth the total admission price to them. Let us suppose that in one season one million persons attend his home games, and Wilt Chamberlain winds up with $250,000, a much larger sum than the average income and larger even than anyone else has. Is he entitled to this income? Is this new distribution unjust?
b. So, then, what should a government do as far as mandating fairness? The exercise of state power is not the action of a separate entity with moral rights greater than those of individual persons, rights to use force against persons for reasons that would not justify the use of force by individuals or groups of individuals per se individual rights and duties are the basis of what governments may and should do. Thomas Nagel, Other Minds: Critical Essays, 1969-1994, p. 141.
Freddie and Fannie are state sponsored. Bear Stearns was bought by JP Morgan in 2008. Another state sponsored monopoly. Lehman Bros. failed and was given a state sponsored parachute. Merrill Lynch is a capital management offshoot of BoA. Another state sponsored monopoly.
What was the question again?
I showed you that 5 years ago it was 200 times more than the average employee and now its 320 times. But the average worker hasn't gotten a raise in 30 years.
At what point will you agree that maybe the workers should get a raise? Just curious.
Do you set wages in this country? Does Don't Taz Me Bro? Then why is it your business who gets a raise or not?
Why should they get raises?
Ok, so the cost of living goes up and inflation occurs and for 30 years, you don't get a raise. But you see the profits are up and the CEO's psy has gone up in the last 5 years from 200 times what I make to 320 times what I make.
Am I in a union? Because if I'm in a union, through collective bargaining we would all get cost of living increases at least. And probably profit sharing.
If I'm not in a union, I don't say a word. I just keep working harder for less. This is what people are doing. Have you seen the numbers? Republicans have been flashing these facts and blaming them on Obama, so I know you understand wages are down. You just don't want to take responsibility.
You wanted low paying jobs. You cried that people were making $35 hr but now complain that the jobs came back at $10.
This is why I think we need to have a rebirth of the unions. Teachers, police, auto workers and firefighters and other government employees are under attack. The rich politicians are cutting their pay and giving it to the rich and the corporations.
You know what? I'm wasting my breath so I'm going to stop. It would take a book to explain to you why you are wrong. Based on your question, I'm wasting my time. Next.
Freddie and Fannie are state sponsored. Bear Stearns was bought by JP Morgan in 2008. Another state sponsored monopoly. Lehman Bros. failed and was given a state sponsored parachute. Merrill Lynch is a capital management offshoot of BoA. Another state sponsored monopoly.
What was the question again?
What is your conceptual continuity?
Freddie and Fannie are state sponsored. Bear Stearns was bought by JP Morgan in 2008. Another state sponsored monopoly. Lehman Bros. failed and was given a state sponsored parachute. Merrill Lynch is a capital management offshoot of BoA. Another state sponsored monopoly.
What was the question again?
What is your conceptual continuity?
As I saw ome of the typical redistribution talks within this thread, it appears that the conceptual continuity is that the govt. is already doing wealth redistribution as it always happens in central planning. Favoritism for "friends" at the expense of competition and taxpayers. The CEO's of these companies got their 2008 and 2012 bonuses off the backs of taxpayers through the lender of last resort. The state sponsored banking cartel known as the federal reseerve with the aid of terrible policies in the halls of congress and the treasury.
If these companies had no federal handouts, they would all be bankrupt and gone. The rate of pay factor is largely guided and admissioned off the government. So the concept of the govt. doing more redistribution is where the progressives are standing on their heads. More of what isn't working isn't going to miraculously begin working...it's the definition of insanity thing.
Do you set wages in this country? Does Don't Taz Me Bro? Then why is it your business who gets a raise or not?
Why should they get raises?
Ok, so the cost of living goes up and inflation occurs and for 30 years, you don't get a raise. But you see the profits are up and the CEO's psy has gone up in the last 5 years from 200 times what I make to 320 times what I make.
Am I in a union? Because if I'm in a union, through collective bargaining we would all get cost of living increases at least. And probably profit sharing.
If I'm not in a union, I don't say a word. I just keep working harder for less. This is what people are doing. Have you seen the numbers? Republicans have been flashing these facts and blaming them on Obama, so I know you understand wages are down. You just don't want to take responsibility.
You wanted low paying jobs. You cried that people were making $35 hr but now complain that the jobs came back at $10.
This is why I think we need to have a rebirth of the unions. Teachers, police, auto workers and firefighters and other government employees are under attack. The rich politicians are cutting their pay and giving it to the rich and the corporations.
You know what? I'm wasting my breath so I'm going to stop. It would take a book to explain to you why you are wrong. Based on your question, I'm wasting my time. Next.
What difference does it make whether the cost of living has gone up 5% or 5000%. Do people get raises based on such factors?
Would you rather have jobs at $10/hr or no job at all? Because that is the choice.
All you have is class envy. Look, they're making more than me! Unfair!
Stuff it, junior. Life is unfair. People get paid what they are worth. An excellent employee will be getting raises all along as he increases his value to the company. A poor employee needs a union to protect him. Unions support mediocrity. There is not an industry in this country dominated by unions that has not needed gov't bailouts and has not resulted in large bankruptcies.
I started a company 10 years ago and hired some workers for $30K each and I hit it big. I should say we but I'm a Republican so I think I did it all myself. Anyways, the first year my take home was $100K. The next year it was $200K. The 3rd year it was $300K and it went up another $100K every year after that for 10 years in a row. I make $1 million dollars a year.
But I never gave those employees raise. Fuck em. I could hire other people for $30K. Why should I have given them a raise. They didn't take any risk. I did. Me, me, me.
What is your conceptual continuity?
As I saw ome of the typical redistribution talks within this thread, it appears that the conceptual continuity is that the govt. is already doing wealth redistribution as it always happens in central planning. Favoritism for "friends" at the expense of competition and taxpayers. The CEO's of these companies got their 2008 and 2012 bonuses off the backs of taxpayers through the lender of last resort. The state sponsored banking cartel known as the federal reseerve with the aid of terrible policies in the halls of congress and the treasury.
If these companies had no federal handouts, they would all be bankrupt and gone. The rate of pay factor is largely guided and admissioned off the government. So the concept of the govt. doing more redistribution is where the progressives are standing on their heads. More of what isn't working isn't going to miraculously begin working...it's the definition of insanity thing.
The government is doing this wealth redistribution at the behest of the corporations. They are the ones writing the checks..and putting up legislators that will be favorable to their bottom line. Seriously..what happened after they bailouts? Not much really. Dodd/Frank is about as weak a regulatory bill as these corporate entities could hope for..and they do very little to curtail the derivative trading that got the economy into the mess in the first place. No one went to jail and banks went along merrily foreclosing on millions of homes.
This is exactly what happens when you concentrate the wealth of a country into the hands of a few. They will make sure that conditions will stay that way..
As I saw ome of the typical redistribution talks within this thread, it appears that the conceptual continuity is that the govt. is already doing wealth redistribution as it always happens in central planning. Favoritism for "friends" at the expense of competition and taxpayers. The CEO's of these companies got their 2008 and 2012 bonuses off the backs of taxpayers through the lender of last resort. The state sponsored banking cartel known as the federal reseerve with the aid of terrible policies in the halls of congress and the treasury.
If these companies had no federal handouts, they would all be bankrupt and gone. The rate of pay factor is largely guided and admissioned off the government. So the concept of the govt. doing more redistribution is where the progressives are standing on their heads. More of what isn't working isn't going to miraculously begin working...it's the definition of insanity thing.
The government is doing this wealth redistribution at the behest of the corporations. They are the ones writing the checks..and putting up legislators that will be favorable to their bottom line. Seriously..what happened after they bailouts? Not much really. Dodd/Frank is about as weak a regulatory bill as these corporate entities could hope for..and they do very little to curtail the derivative trading that got the economy into the mess in the first place. No one went to jail and banks went along merrily foreclosing on millions of homes.
This is exactly what happens when you concentrate the wealth of a country into the hands of a few. They will make sure that conditions will stay that way..
The govt. running of the economy, AKA 'central planning', is how these monopolies, state sponsored as they are, managed to attain their levels of wealth. SO the question is not how can government do a better job at central planning, because central planning does not work. The question is, how do we get government to stop trying to run the economy and allow for more competition, less favoritism and upholding the rule of law of the land.
Their need not be harsher regulation from govt. as it will only do what is best for the state sponsored monopolies that have been fostered and secured under govt. intrusion. This goes right down to the root of the problem which is paper money and the wielder of the printing press. Until we address these problems, it will alll remain the same. More of bad govt. policy by harsher regulation on some (considering govt. grew those monopolies through this process) will not do anything.
Government can not effectively plan things centrally. The best government is the one that governs the least.
The government is doing this wealth redistribution at the behest of the corporations.