|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 07 2013 05:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 05:11 sam!zdat wrote:On November 07 2013 05:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 05:04 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:53 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:39 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:16 Adila wrote:
[quote]
In what universe is it reasonable for CEOs to get golden parachutes while the company underperforms? In what universe do CEOs get huge bonuses while laying off thousands of workers even with the company making a large profit?
Are some union demands completely out of line? of course. They need to be reined in a bit when they do. However, a lot of the same people who want to rein in unions don't seem to have the same appetite when it comes to CEO/corporate excess though. You answered your own question. If the CEO runs the company well and helps the company make a ton of money, then he should be compensated accordingly. Despite popular liberal opinion, corporations don't exist to employ people. They exist to make money. A good executive is worth his weight in gold, which is why executives are paid so much. It's not a job that everyone can do. And comparing the corporate excess of executive compensation to union demands is pointless. It's apples and oranges on just about every level imaginable. For one, the compensation of the CEO is usually tied to the well-being and profitability of the company (stock options). This is not the case with compensation given to a typical employee, regardless of whether the employee is in a union. Second, executive compensation, even if it looks outrageous, is small potatoes on the corporate ledger compared to employee benefits. The latter makes companies go bankrupt. Not the former. key word "should" but how are you going to make sure this happens? (it won't in a free market) they'll keep paying themselves masses even if the company goes under because of their leadership. Discard your faith in the free market already. What are you talking about? Executives don't determine their own salary. The ownership does. If the ownership and the executives are the same people, that's their own fucking business and they can do whatever they want with their company. That's ultimately what it comes down to: they can do whatever they want with the company. You give me no assurances that they will fail when the company fails. What more failure do you need than the destruction and utter loss of a valuable asset? If I own a company that generates $2 million per year and is valued at around $10 million, I have pretty damned good incentive to keep the thing afloat rather than run it into the ground. My personal loss in destroying the company would be far greater than that of any employee of mine. Executives and owners aren't looking to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. But what exactly is the incentive to keep it afloat? And is your claim really empirically proven? There's no lack of cases where CEOs have tanked the company and made millions in severance/golden parachutes. Clearly if you can run away and make millions then people will. Keeping a job? Getting a new job? Maximizing the value of their compensation (they aren't going to make as much money tanking the company as opposed to keeping/making the company profitable). You're acting as if executives are intentionally destroying companies to make a quick buck, which is ridiculous. Bad management happens. Executives don't always do a good job or get a good result for their company. That doesn't mean they are intentionally destroying their employer. http://www.salon.com/2013/07/18/ayn_rand_killed_sears_partner/ So the guy was a bad manager?
and made a lot of money doing it
|
On November 07 2013 05:17 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 05:15 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 05:11 sam!zdat wrote:On November 07 2013 05:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 05:04 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:53 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:39 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:33 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
You answered your own question. If the CEO runs the company well and helps the company make a ton of money, then he should be compensated accordingly. Despite popular liberal opinion, corporations don't exist to employ people. They exist to make money. A good executive is worth his weight in gold, which is why executives are paid so much. It's not a job that everyone can do.
And comparing the corporate excess of executive compensation to union demands is pointless. It's apples and oranges on just about every level imaginable. For one, the compensation of the CEO is usually tied to the well-being and profitability of the company (stock options). This is not the case with compensation given to a typical employee, regardless of whether the employee is in a union. Second, executive compensation, even if it looks outrageous, is small potatoes on the corporate ledger compared to employee benefits. The latter makes companies go bankrupt. Not the former. key word "should" but how are you going to make sure this happens? (it won't in a free market) they'll keep paying themselves masses even if the company goes under because of their leadership. Discard your faith in the free market already. What are you talking about? Executives don't determine their own salary. The ownership does. If the ownership and the executives are the same people, that's their own fucking business and they can do whatever they want with their company. That's ultimately what it comes down to: they can do whatever they want with the company. You give me no assurances that they will fail when the company fails. What more failure do you need than the destruction and utter loss of a valuable asset? If I own a company that generates $2 million per year and is valued at around $10 million, I have pretty damned good incentive to keep the thing afloat rather than run it into the ground. My personal loss in destroying the company would be far greater than that of any employee of mine. Executives and owners aren't looking to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. But what exactly is the incentive to keep it afloat? And is your claim really empirically proven? There's no lack of cases where CEOs have tanked the company and made millions in severance/golden parachutes. Clearly if you can run away and make millions then people will. Keeping a job? Getting a new job? Maximizing the value of their compensation (they aren't going to make as much money tanking the company as opposed to keeping/making the company profitable). You're acting as if executives are intentionally destroying companies to make a quick buck, which is ridiculous. Bad management happens. Executives don't always do a good job or get a good result for their company. That doesn't mean they are intentionally destroying their employer. http://www.salon.com/2013/07/18/ayn_rand_killed_sears_partner/ So the guy was a bad manager? and made a lot of money doing it
So what? I'm sure that he would have made even more money had he been a good manager.
I understand why people are offended that someone can make a ton of money doing a shitty job. However, there's a difference between doing a shitty job and doing a shitty job with malicious intent.
|
On November 07 2013 05:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 05:04 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:53 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:39 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:16 Adila wrote:On November 07 2013 03:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 03:25 farvacola wrote:
It is incredibly non-useful to discuss unions in an ahistoric vacuum; "unions usually" circa 1965 means something entirely different than, "unions usually" circa 2008.
My point is that unions are definitely complicit in a lot of troubling wage distortions and budget deficits, but to lay these problems at the feet of unions alone is to ignore what globalization is and what it does. Unions need to change, but they are not fundamentally flawed enough to say, "unions are bad, mmkay." Take globalization out of the equation for a moment. In what universe is it reasonable to demand to be paid 6-figure pensions for the rest of your life upon retirement? In what universe is it reasonable for CEOs to get golden parachutes while the company underperforms? In what universe do CEOs get huge bonuses while laying off thousands of workers even with the company making a large profit?Are some union demands completely out of line? of course. They need to be reined in a bit when they do. However, a lot of the same people who want to rein in unions don't seem to have the same appetite when it comes to CEO/corporate excess though. You answered your own question. If the CEO runs the company well and helps the company make a ton of money, then he should be compensated accordingly. Despite popular liberal opinion, corporations don't exist to employ people. They exist to make money. A good executive is worth his weight in gold, which is why executives are paid so much. It's not a job that everyone can do. And comparing the corporate excess of executive compensation to union demands is pointless. It's apples and oranges on just about every level imaginable. For one, the compensation of the CEO is usually tied to the well-being and profitability of the company (stock options). This is not the case with compensation given to a typical employee, regardless of whether the employee is in a union. Second, executive compensation, even if it looks outrageous, is small potatoes on the corporate ledger compared to employee benefits. The latter makes companies go bankrupt. Not the former. key word "should" but how are you going to make sure this happens? (it won't in a free market) they'll keep paying themselves masses even if the company goes under because of their leadership. Discard your faith in the free market already. What are you talking about? Executives don't determine their own salary. The ownership does. If the ownership and the executives are the same people, that's their own fucking business and they can do whatever they want with their company. That's ultimately what it comes down to: they can do whatever they want with the company. You give me no assurances that they will fail when the company fails. What more failure do you need than the destruction and utter loss of a valuable asset? If I own a company that generates $2 million per year and is valued at around $10 million, I have pretty damned good incentive to keep the thing afloat rather than run it into the ground. My personal loss in destroying the company would be far greater than that of any employee of mine. Executives and owners aren't looking to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. But what exactly is the incentive to keep it afloat? And is your claim really empirically proven? There's no lack of cases where CEOs have tanked the company and made millions in severance/golden parachutes. Clearly if you can run away and make millions then people will. Keeping a job? Getting a new job? Maximizing the value of their compensation (they aren't going to make as much money tanking the company as opposed to keeping/making the company profitable). You're acting as if executives are intentionally destroying companies to make a quick buck, which is ridiculous. Bad management happens. Executives don't always do a good job or get a good result for their company. That doesn't mean they are intentionally destroying their employer.
A good read on making a quick buck while destroying companies (among many other things):
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405
|
On November 07 2013 05:19 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 05:17 sam!zdat wrote:On November 07 2013 05:15 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 05:11 sam!zdat wrote:On November 07 2013 05:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 05:04 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:53 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:39 Roe wrote:
[quote]
key word "should"
but how are you going to make sure this happens? (it won't in a free market) they'll keep paying themselves masses even if the company goes under because of their leadership. Discard your faith in the free market already. What are you talking about? Executives don't determine their own salary. The ownership does. If the ownership and the executives are the same people, that's their own fucking business and they can do whatever they want with their company. That's ultimately what it comes down to: they can do whatever they want with the company. You give me no assurances that they will fail when the company fails. What more failure do you need than the destruction and utter loss of a valuable asset? If I own a company that generates $2 million per year and is valued at around $10 million, I have pretty damned good incentive to keep the thing afloat rather than run it into the ground. My personal loss in destroying the company would be far greater than that of any employee of mine. Executives and owners aren't looking to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. But what exactly is the incentive to keep it afloat? And is your claim really empirically proven? There's no lack of cases where CEOs have tanked the company and made millions in severance/golden parachutes. Clearly if you can run away and make millions then people will. Keeping a job? Getting a new job? Maximizing the value of their compensation (they aren't going to make as much money tanking the company as opposed to keeping/making the company profitable). You're acting as if executives are intentionally destroying companies to make a quick buck, which is ridiculous. Bad management happens. Executives don't always do a good job or get a good result for their company. That doesn't mean they are intentionally destroying their employer. http://www.salon.com/2013/07/18/ayn_rand_killed_sears_partner/ So the guy was a bad manager? and made a lot of money doing it So what? I'm sure that he would have made even more money had he been a good manager.
but that's just begging the question, of course
|
On November 07 2013 05:21 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 05:19 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 05:17 sam!zdat wrote:On November 07 2013 05:15 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 05:11 sam!zdat wrote:On November 07 2013 05:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 05:04 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:53 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:46 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
What are you talking about? Executives don't determine their own salary. The ownership does. If the ownership and the executives are the same people, that's their own fucking business and they can do whatever they want with their company.
That's ultimately what it comes down to: they can do whatever they want with the company. You give me no assurances that they will fail when the company fails. What more failure do you need than the destruction and utter loss of a valuable asset? If I own a company that generates $2 million per year and is valued at around $10 million, I have pretty damned good incentive to keep the thing afloat rather than run it into the ground. My personal loss in destroying the company would be far greater than that of any employee of mine. Executives and owners aren't looking to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. But what exactly is the incentive to keep it afloat? And is your claim really empirically proven? There's no lack of cases where CEOs have tanked the company and made millions in severance/golden parachutes. Clearly if you can run away and make millions then people will. Keeping a job? Getting a new job? Maximizing the value of their compensation (they aren't going to make as much money tanking the company as opposed to keeping/making the company profitable). You're acting as if executives are intentionally destroying companies to make a quick buck, which is ridiculous. Bad management happens. Executives don't always do a good job or get a good result for their company. That doesn't mean they are intentionally destroying their employer. http://www.salon.com/2013/07/18/ayn_rand_killed_sears_partner/ So the guy was a bad manager? and made a lot of money doing it So what? I'm sure that he would have made even more money had he been a good manager. but that's just begging the question, of course
all corporate apologetics seem to rely on begging the question
|
On November 07 2013 05:20 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 05:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 05:04 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:53 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:39 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:16 Adila wrote:On November 07 2013 03:46 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Take globalization out of the equation for a moment. In what universe is it reasonable to demand to be paid 6-figure pensions for the rest of your life upon retirement? In what universe is it reasonable for CEOs to get golden parachutes while the company underperforms? In what universe do CEOs get huge bonuses while laying off thousands of workers even with the company making a large profit?Are some union demands completely out of line? of course. They need to be reined in a bit when they do. However, a lot of the same people who want to rein in unions don't seem to have the same appetite when it comes to CEO/corporate excess though. You answered your own question. If the CEO runs the company well and helps the company make a ton of money, then he should be compensated accordingly. Despite popular liberal opinion, corporations don't exist to employ people. They exist to make money. A good executive is worth his weight in gold, which is why executives are paid so much. It's not a job that everyone can do. And comparing the corporate excess of executive compensation to union demands is pointless. It's apples and oranges on just about every level imaginable. For one, the compensation of the CEO is usually tied to the well-being and profitability of the company (stock options). This is not the case with compensation given to a typical employee, regardless of whether the employee is in a union. Second, executive compensation, even if it looks outrageous, is small potatoes on the corporate ledger compared to employee benefits. The latter makes companies go bankrupt. Not the former. key word "should" but how are you going to make sure this happens? (it won't in a free market) they'll keep paying themselves masses even if the company goes under because of their leadership. Discard your faith in the free market already. What are you talking about? Executives don't determine their own salary. The ownership does. If the ownership and the executives are the same people, that's their own fucking business and they can do whatever they want with their company. That's ultimately what it comes down to: they can do whatever they want with the company. You give me no assurances that they will fail when the company fails. What more failure do you need than the destruction and utter loss of a valuable asset? If I own a company that generates $2 million per year and is valued at around $10 million, I have pretty damned good incentive to keep the thing afloat rather than run it into the ground. My personal loss in destroying the company would be far greater than that of any employee of mine. Executives and owners aren't looking to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. But what exactly is the incentive to keep it afloat? And is your claim really empirically proven? There's no lack of cases where CEOs have tanked the company and made millions in severance/golden parachutes. Clearly if you can run away and make millions then people will. Keeping a job? Getting a new job? Maximizing the value of their compensation (they aren't going to make as much money tanking the company as opposed to keeping/making the company profitable). You're acting as if executives are intentionally destroying companies to make a quick buck, which is ridiculous. Bad management happens. Executives don't always do a good job or get a good result for their company. That doesn't mean they are intentionally destroying their employer. A good read on making a quick buck while destroying companies (among many other things): http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405
There's a difference between equity/investment firms like Goldman Sachs intentionally destroying companies to make money (which they do in some instances) and executives managing a company poorly.
|
On November 07 2013 05:00 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 04:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 07 2013 04:16 Adila wrote:On November 07 2013 03:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 03:25 farvacola wrote:
It is incredibly non-useful to discuss unions in an ahistoric vacuum; "unions usually" circa 1965 means something entirely different than, "unions usually" circa 2008.
My point is that unions are definitely complicit in a lot of troubling wage distortions and budget deficits, but to lay these problems at the feet of unions alone is to ignore what globalization is and what it does. Unions need to change, but they are not fundamentally flawed enough to say, "unions are bad, mmkay." Take globalization out of the equation for a moment. In what universe is it reasonable to demand to be paid 6-figure pensions for the rest of your life upon retirement? In what universe is it reasonable for CEOs to get golden parachutes while the company underperforms? In what universe do CEOs get huge bonuses while laying off thousands of workers even with the company making a large profit? Are some union demands completely out of line? of course. They need to be reined in a bit when they do. However, a lot of the same people who want to rein in unions don't seem to have the same appetite when it comes to CEO/corporate excess though. Laying off workers when a firm is turning a profit isn't necessarily wrong. Ex. B of A laying off mortgage processors when mortgage processing is down is perfectly reasonable, even if B of A is turning a nice profit as a whole. CEO / corporate excess is an issue that gets lots of attention. It's something that the right does not typically want to deal with publicly, because they see the private sector as already working on it. It's also worth noting that previous attempts at reigning in CEO pay with government regs may have backfired and lead to greater CEO pay. ( source, see comments on section 162) Microeconomics and macroeconomics have completly different point of view on laying off workers. We're in a society that is way too dominated by microeconomics (the discussion around competitivity is a good exemple of that, where seeking competitivity from the perspective of the firm is just nonsensical for anyone who study the competitivity of nations).
I don't think the points of view are that different. Not laying off workers when you don't need them can result in more employment, but you'll end up with less productivity. That can end up a wash in terms of overall economic output.
|
On November 07 2013 05:19 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 05:17 sam!zdat wrote:On November 07 2013 05:15 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 05:11 sam!zdat wrote:On November 07 2013 05:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 05:04 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:53 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:39 Roe wrote:
[quote]
key word "should"
but how are you going to make sure this happens? (it won't in a free market) they'll keep paying themselves masses even if the company goes under because of their leadership. Discard your faith in the free market already. What are you talking about? Executives don't determine their own salary. The ownership does. If the ownership and the executives are the same people, that's their own fucking business and they can do whatever they want with their company. That's ultimately what it comes down to: they can do whatever they want with the company. You give me no assurances that they will fail when the company fails. What more failure do you need than the destruction and utter loss of a valuable asset? If I own a company that generates $2 million per year and is valued at around $10 million, I have pretty damned good incentive to keep the thing afloat rather than run it into the ground. My personal loss in destroying the company would be far greater than that of any employee of mine. Executives and owners aren't looking to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. But what exactly is the incentive to keep it afloat? And is your claim really empirically proven? There's no lack of cases where CEOs have tanked the company and made millions in severance/golden parachutes. Clearly if you can run away and make millions then people will. Keeping a job? Getting a new job? Maximizing the value of their compensation (they aren't going to make as much money tanking the company as opposed to keeping/making the company profitable). You're acting as if executives are intentionally destroying companies to make a quick buck, which is ridiculous. Bad management happens. Executives don't always do a good job or get a good result for their company. That doesn't mean they are intentionally destroying their employer. http://www.salon.com/2013/07/18/ayn_rand_killed_sears_partner/ So the guy was a bad manager? and made a lot of money doing it So what? I'm sure that he would have made even more money had he been a good manager. I understand why people are offended that someone can make a ton of money doing a shitty job. However, there's a difference between doing a shitty job and doing a shitty job with malicious intent.
The problem is that much of the pay is supposed to be performance pay. Yet if the performance is bad and the pay remains...
Not speaking about Sears specifically, I don't know much about Sears, but executives do get paid for poor performance and there is a lot of internal and external discussion over what to do about that.
|
On November 07 2013 05:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 05:20 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 05:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 05:04 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:53 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:39 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:16 Adila wrote:
[quote]
In what universe is it reasonable for CEOs to get golden parachutes while the company underperforms? In what universe do CEOs get huge bonuses while laying off thousands of workers even with the company making a large profit?
Are some union demands completely out of line? of course. They need to be reined in a bit when they do. However, a lot of the same people who want to rein in unions don't seem to have the same appetite when it comes to CEO/corporate excess though. You answered your own question. If the CEO runs the company well and helps the company make a ton of money, then he should be compensated accordingly. Despite popular liberal opinion, corporations don't exist to employ people. They exist to make money. A good executive is worth his weight in gold, which is why executives are paid so much. It's not a job that everyone can do. And comparing the corporate excess of executive compensation to union demands is pointless. It's apples and oranges on just about every level imaginable. For one, the compensation of the CEO is usually tied to the well-being and profitability of the company (stock options). This is not the case with compensation given to a typical employee, regardless of whether the employee is in a union. Second, executive compensation, even if it looks outrageous, is small potatoes on the corporate ledger compared to employee benefits. The latter makes companies go bankrupt. Not the former. key word "should" but how are you going to make sure this happens? (it won't in a free market) they'll keep paying themselves masses even if the company goes under because of their leadership. Discard your faith in the free market already. What are you talking about? Executives don't determine their own salary. The ownership does. If the ownership and the executives are the same people, that's their own fucking business and they can do whatever they want with their company. That's ultimately what it comes down to: they can do whatever they want with the company. You give me no assurances that they will fail when the company fails. What more failure do you need than the destruction and utter loss of a valuable asset? If I own a company that generates $2 million per year and is valued at around $10 million, I have pretty damned good incentive to keep the thing afloat rather than run it into the ground. My personal loss in destroying the company would be far greater than that of any employee of mine. Executives and owners aren't looking to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. But what exactly is the incentive to keep it afloat? And is your claim really empirically proven? There's no lack of cases where CEOs have tanked the company and made millions in severance/golden parachutes. Clearly if you can run away and make millions then people will. Keeping a job? Getting a new job? Maximizing the value of their compensation (they aren't going to make as much money tanking the company as opposed to keeping/making the company profitable). You're acting as if executives are intentionally destroying companies to make a quick buck, which is ridiculous. Bad management happens. Executives don't always do a good job or get a good result for their company. That doesn't mean they are intentionally destroying their employer. A good read on making a quick buck while destroying companies (among many other things): http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405 There's a difference between equity/investment firms like Goldman Sachs intentionally destroying companies to make money (which they do in some instances) and executives managing a company poorly.
and that difference is...
|
On November 07 2013 06:03 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 05:24 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 05:20 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 05:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 05:04 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:53 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:39 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:33 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
You answered your own question. If the CEO runs the company well and helps the company make a ton of money, then he should be compensated accordingly. Despite popular liberal opinion, corporations don't exist to employ people. They exist to make money. A good executive is worth his weight in gold, which is why executives are paid so much. It's not a job that everyone can do.
And comparing the corporate excess of executive compensation to union demands is pointless. It's apples and oranges on just about every level imaginable. For one, the compensation of the CEO is usually tied to the well-being and profitability of the company (stock options). This is not the case with compensation given to a typical employee, regardless of whether the employee is in a union. Second, executive compensation, even if it looks outrageous, is small potatoes on the corporate ledger compared to employee benefits. The latter makes companies go bankrupt. Not the former. key word "should" but how are you going to make sure this happens? (it won't in a free market) they'll keep paying themselves masses even if the company goes under because of their leadership. Discard your faith in the free market already. What are you talking about? Executives don't determine their own salary. The ownership does. If the ownership and the executives are the same people, that's their own fucking business and they can do whatever they want with their company. That's ultimately what it comes down to: they can do whatever they want with the company. You give me no assurances that they will fail when the company fails. What more failure do you need than the destruction and utter loss of a valuable asset? If I own a company that generates $2 million per year and is valued at around $10 million, I have pretty damned good incentive to keep the thing afloat rather than run it into the ground. My personal loss in destroying the company would be far greater than that of any employee of mine. Executives and owners aren't looking to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. But what exactly is the incentive to keep it afloat? And is your claim really empirically proven? There's no lack of cases where CEOs have tanked the company and made millions in severance/golden parachutes. Clearly if you can run away and make millions then people will. Keeping a job? Getting a new job? Maximizing the value of their compensation (they aren't going to make as much money tanking the company as opposed to keeping/making the company profitable). You're acting as if executives are intentionally destroying companies to make a quick buck, which is ridiculous. Bad management happens. Executives don't always do a good job or get a good result for their company. That doesn't mean they are intentionally destroying their employer. A good read on making a quick buck while destroying companies (among many other things): http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405 There's a difference between equity/investment firms like Goldman Sachs intentionally destroying companies to make money (which they do in some instances) and executives managing a company poorly. and that difference is...
The difference between being poisoned and drinking yourself to death.
|
On November 07 2013 06:03 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 05:24 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 05:20 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 05:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 05:04 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:53 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:39 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:33 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
You answered your own question. If the CEO runs the company well and helps the company make a ton of money, then he should be compensated accordingly. Despite popular liberal opinion, corporations don't exist to employ people. They exist to make money. A good executive is worth his weight in gold, which is why executives are paid so much. It's not a job that everyone can do.
And comparing the corporate excess of executive compensation to union demands is pointless. It's apples and oranges on just about every level imaginable. For one, the compensation of the CEO is usually tied to the well-being and profitability of the company (stock options). This is not the case with compensation given to a typical employee, regardless of whether the employee is in a union. Second, executive compensation, even if it looks outrageous, is small potatoes on the corporate ledger compared to employee benefits. The latter makes companies go bankrupt. Not the former. key word "should" but how are you going to make sure this happens? (it won't in a free market) they'll keep paying themselves masses even if the company goes under because of their leadership. Discard your faith in the free market already. What are you talking about? Executives don't determine their own salary. The ownership does. If the ownership and the executives are the same people, that's their own fucking business and they can do whatever they want with their company. That's ultimately what it comes down to: they can do whatever they want with the company. You give me no assurances that they will fail when the company fails. What more failure do you need than the destruction and utter loss of a valuable asset? If I own a company that generates $2 million per year and is valued at around $10 million, I have pretty damned good incentive to keep the thing afloat rather than run it into the ground. My personal loss in destroying the company would be far greater than that of any employee of mine. Executives and owners aren't looking to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. But what exactly is the incentive to keep it afloat? And is your claim really empirically proven? There's no lack of cases where CEOs have tanked the company and made millions in severance/golden parachutes. Clearly if you can run away and make millions then people will. Keeping a job? Getting a new job? Maximizing the value of their compensation (they aren't going to make as much money tanking the company as opposed to keeping/making the company profitable). You're acting as if executives are intentionally destroying companies to make a quick buck, which is ridiculous. Bad management happens. Executives don't always do a good job or get a good result for their company. That doesn't mean they are intentionally destroying their employer. A good read on making a quick buck while destroying companies (among many other things): http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405 There's a difference between equity/investment firms like Goldman Sachs intentionally destroying companies to make money (which they do in some instances) and executives managing a company poorly. and that difference is...
Goldman Sachs is disposing of their property as they see fit to make money, which is their job. The executive is simply an idiot who is not doing his job well.
|
On November 07 2013 05:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 05:19 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 05:17 sam!zdat wrote:On November 07 2013 05:15 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 05:11 sam!zdat wrote:On November 07 2013 05:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 05:04 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:53 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:46 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
What are you talking about? Executives don't determine their own salary. The ownership does. If the ownership and the executives are the same people, that's their own fucking business and they can do whatever they want with their company.
That's ultimately what it comes down to: they can do whatever they want with the company. You give me no assurances that they will fail when the company fails. What more failure do you need than the destruction and utter loss of a valuable asset? If I own a company that generates $2 million per year and is valued at around $10 million, I have pretty damned good incentive to keep the thing afloat rather than run it into the ground. My personal loss in destroying the company would be far greater than that of any employee of mine. Executives and owners aren't looking to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. But what exactly is the incentive to keep it afloat? And is your claim really empirically proven? There's no lack of cases where CEOs have tanked the company and made millions in severance/golden parachutes. Clearly if you can run away and make millions then people will. Keeping a job? Getting a new job? Maximizing the value of their compensation (they aren't going to make as much money tanking the company as opposed to keeping/making the company profitable). You're acting as if executives are intentionally destroying companies to make a quick buck, which is ridiculous. Bad management happens. Executives don't always do a good job or get a good result for their company. That doesn't mean they are intentionally destroying their employer. http://www.salon.com/2013/07/18/ayn_rand_killed_sears_partner/ So the guy was a bad manager? and made a lot of money doing it So what? I'm sure that he would have made even more money had he been a good manager. I understand why people are offended that someone can make a ton of money doing a shitty job. However, there's a difference between doing a shitty job and doing a shitty job with malicious intent. The problem is that much of the pay is supposed to be performance pay. Yet if the performance is bad and the pay remains... Not speaking about Sears specifically, I don't know much about Sears, but executives do get paid for poor performance and there is a lot of internal and external discussion over what to do about that.
One contributor to ridiculous executive compensation even for poor work was actually an attempt to rein in pay: namely, transparency. Instead of board members being embarrassed about overpaying CEOs, instead they've come to demand that a CEO be "worth" as much as the CEOs of their competitors, so naturally they should pay them as much if not more than other CEOs.
|
On November 07 2013 05:20 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 05:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 05:04 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:53 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:39 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:16 Adila wrote:On November 07 2013 03:46 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Take globalization out of the equation for a moment. In what universe is it reasonable to demand to be paid 6-figure pensions for the rest of your life upon retirement? In what universe is it reasonable for CEOs to get golden parachutes while the company underperforms? In what universe do CEOs get huge bonuses while laying off thousands of workers even with the company making a large profit?Are some union demands completely out of line? of course. They need to be reined in a bit when they do. However, a lot of the same people who want to rein in unions don't seem to have the same appetite when it comes to CEO/corporate excess though. You answered your own question. If the CEO runs the company well and helps the company make a ton of money, then he should be compensated accordingly. Despite popular liberal opinion, corporations don't exist to employ people. They exist to make money. A good executive is worth his weight in gold, which is why executives are paid so much. It's not a job that everyone can do. And comparing the corporate excess of executive compensation to union demands is pointless. It's apples and oranges on just about every level imaginable. For one, the compensation of the CEO is usually tied to the well-being and profitability of the company (stock options). This is not the case with compensation given to a typical employee, regardless of whether the employee is in a union. Second, executive compensation, even if it looks outrageous, is small potatoes on the corporate ledger compared to employee benefits. The latter makes companies go bankrupt. Not the former. key word "should" but how are you going to make sure this happens? (it won't in a free market) they'll keep paying themselves masses even if the company goes under because of their leadership. Discard your faith in the free market already. What are you talking about? Executives don't determine their own salary. The ownership does. If the ownership and the executives are the same people, that's their own fucking business and they can do whatever they want with their company. That's ultimately what it comes down to: they can do whatever they want with the company. You give me no assurances that they will fail when the company fails. What more failure do you need than the destruction and utter loss of a valuable asset? If I own a company that generates $2 million per year and is valued at around $10 million, I have pretty damned good incentive to keep the thing afloat rather than run it into the ground. My personal loss in destroying the company would be far greater than that of any employee of mine. Executives and owners aren't looking to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. But what exactly is the incentive to keep it afloat? And is your claim really empirically proven? There's no lack of cases where CEOs have tanked the company and made millions in severance/golden parachutes. Clearly if you can run away and make millions then people will. Keeping a job? Getting a new job? Maximizing the value of their compensation (they aren't going to make as much money tanking the company as opposed to keeping/making the company profitable). You're acting as if executives are intentionally destroying companies to make a quick buck, which is ridiculous. Bad management happens. Executives don't always do a good job or get a good result for their company. That doesn't mean they are intentionally destroying their employer. A good read on making a quick buck while destroying companies (among many other things): http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405
Sounds like a left-wing version of "End the Fed".
|
On November 07 2013 07:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 05:20 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 05:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 05:04 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:53 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:39 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:16 Adila wrote:
[quote]
In what universe is it reasonable for CEOs to get golden parachutes while the company underperforms? In what universe do CEOs get huge bonuses while laying off thousands of workers even with the company making a large profit?
Are some union demands completely out of line? of course. They need to be reined in a bit when they do. However, a lot of the same people who want to rein in unions don't seem to have the same appetite when it comes to CEO/corporate excess though. You answered your own question. If the CEO runs the company well and helps the company make a ton of money, then he should be compensated accordingly. Despite popular liberal opinion, corporations don't exist to employ people. They exist to make money. A good executive is worth his weight in gold, which is why executives are paid so much. It's not a job that everyone can do. And comparing the corporate excess of executive compensation to union demands is pointless. It's apples and oranges on just about every level imaginable. For one, the compensation of the CEO is usually tied to the well-being and profitability of the company (stock options). This is not the case with compensation given to a typical employee, regardless of whether the employee is in a union. Second, executive compensation, even if it looks outrageous, is small potatoes on the corporate ledger compared to employee benefits. The latter makes companies go bankrupt. Not the former. key word "should" but how are you going to make sure this happens? (it won't in a free market) they'll keep paying themselves masses even if the company goes under because of their leadership. Discard your faith in the free market already. What are you talking about? Executives don't determine their own salary. The ownership does. If the ownership and the executives are the same people, that's their own fucking business and they can do whatever they want with their company. That's ultimately what it comes down to: they can do whatever they want with the company. You give me no assurances that they will fail when the company fails. What more failure do you need than the destruction and utter loss of a valuable asset? If I own a company that generates $2 million per year and is valued at around $10 million, I have pretty damned good incentive to keep the thing afloat rather than run it into the ground. My personal loss in destroying the company would be far greater than that of any employee of mine. Executives and owners aren't looking to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. But what exactly is the incentive to keep it afloat? And is your claim really empirically proven? There's no lack of cases where CEOs have tanked the company and made millions in severance/golden parachutes. Clearly if you can run away and make millions then people will. Keeping a job? Getting a new job? Maximizing the value of their compensation (they aren't going to make as much money tanking the company as opposed to keeping/making the company profitable). You're acting as if executives are intentionally destroying companies to make a quick buck, which is ridiculous. Bad management happens. Executives don't always do a good job or get a good result for their company. That doesn't mean they are intentionally destroying their employer. A good read on making a quick buck while destroying companies (among many other things): http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405 Sounds like a left-wing version of "End the Fed".
Isn't ending the fed a left-wing position anyways? I thought sam advocated it. At any rate your comment is impotent and frankly irrelevant.
|
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Rand Paul lashed out at the media Wednesday for its coverage of the plagiarism allegations that have rocked the Kentucky Republican over the last week.
A day after announcing plans to amend the approval process for speeches and op-eds under his name, Paul told National Review he was so frustrated with the negative press that he would have failed reporters if he were their journalism teacher.
"What makes me mad about the whole thing is that I believe there is a difference between errors of omission and errors of intention," Paul said in an interview with National Review's Robert Costa. "We aren’t perfect and we have made errors of omission, but we never intended to mislead anybody."
"I’m being criticized for not having proper attribution, and yet they are able to write stuff that if I were their journalism teacher in college, I would fail them," he added.
Source
|
On November 07 2013 07:32 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 07:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 07 2013 05:20 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 05:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 05:04 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:53 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:39 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:33 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
You answered your own question. If the CEO runs the company well and helps the company make a ton of money, then he should be compensated accordingly. Despite popular liberal opinion, corporations don't exist to employ people. They exist to make money. A good executive is worth his weight in gold, which is why executives are paid so much. It's not a job that everyone can do.
And comparing the corporate excess of executive compensation to union demands is pointless. It's apples and oranges on just about every level imaginable. For one, the compensation of the CEO is usually tied to the well-being and profitability of the company (stock options). This is not the case with compensation given to a typical employee, regardless of whether the employee is in a union. Second, executive compensation, even if it looks outrageous, is small potatoes on the corporate ledger compared to employee benefits. The latter makes companies go bankrupt. Not the former. key word "should" but how are you going to make sure this happens? (it won't in a free market) they'll keep paying themselves masses even if the company goes under because of their leadership. Discard your faith in the free market already. What are you talking about? Executives don't determine their own salary. The ownership does. If the ownership and the executives are the same people, that's their own fucking business and they can do whatever they want with their company. That's ultimately what it comes down to: they can do whatever they want with the company. You give me no assurances that they will fail when the company fails. What more failure do you need than the destruction and utter loss of a valuable asset? If I own a company that generates $2 million per year and is valued at around $10 million, I have pretty damned good incentive to keep the thing afloat rather than run it into the ground. My personal loss in destroying the company would be far greater than that of any employee of mine. Executives and owners aren't looking to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. But what exactly is the incentive to keep it afloat? And is your claim really empirically proven? There's no lack of cases where CEOs have tanked the company and made millions in severance/golden parachutes. Clearly if you can run away and make millions then people will. Keeping a job? Getting a new job? Maximizing the value of their compensation (they aren't going to make as much money tanking the company as opposed to keeping/making the company profitable). You're acting as if executives are intentionally destroying companies to make a quick buck, which is ridiculous. Bad management happens. Executives don't always do a good job or get a good result for their company. That doesn't mean they are intentionally destroying their employer. A good read on making a quick buck while destroying companies (among many other things): http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405 Sounds like a left-wing version of "End the Fed". Isn't ending the fed a left-wing position anyways? I thought sam advocated it. At any rate your comment is impotent and frankly irrelevant.
no "end the fed" is a libertarian slogan
I hate quantitative easing, not central banking. I oppose the central bank's policies in a way that aligns me with certain elements of the right, but for different reasons
the right wing has a delusional fantasy that somehow capitalism can survive the current crisis which has provoked the QE life support. they think they can have capitalism without central banking. these are people who believe that "capitalism" and "the state" are different things which oppose one another
|
On November 07 2013 07:42 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON -- Sen. Rand Paul lashed out at the media Wednesday for its coverage of the plagiarism allegations that have rocked the Kentucky Republican over the last week.
A day after announcing plans to amend the approval process for speeches and op-eds under his name, Paul told National Review he was so frustrated with the negative press that he would have failed reporters if he were their journalism teacher.
"What makes me mad about the whole thing is that I believe there is a difference between errors of omission and errors of intention," Paul said in an interview with National Review's Robert Costa. "We aren’t perfect and we have made errors of omission, but we never intended to mislead anybody."
"I’m being criticized for not having proper attribution, and yet they are able to write stuff that if I were their journalism teacher in college, I would fail them," he added. Source
Get accused of plagiarism, pretend to be a journalism teacher. Interesting strategy lol.
|
On November 07 2013 07:32 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 07:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 07 2013 05:20 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 05:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 05:04 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:53 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:39 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:33 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
You answered your own question. If the CEO runs the company well and helps the company make a ton of money, then he should be compensated accordingly. Despite popular liberal opinion, corporations don't exist to employ people. They exist to make money. A good executive is worth his weight in gold, which is why executives are paid so much. It's not a job that everyone can do.
And comparing the corporate excess of executive compensation to union demands is pointless. It's apples and oranges on just about every level imaginable. For one, the compensation of the CEO is usually tied to the well-being and profitability of the company (stock options). This is not the case with compensation given to a typical employee, regardless of whether the employee is in a union. Second, executive compensation, even if it looks outrageous, is small potatoes on the corporate ledger compared to employee benefits. The latter makes companies go bankrupt. Not the former. key word "should" but how are you going to make sure this happens? (it won't in a free market) they'll keep paying themselves masses even if the company goes under because of their leadership. Discard your faith in the free market already. What are you talking about? Executives don't determine their own salary. The ownership does. If the ownership and the executives are the same people, that's their own fucking business and they can do whatever they want with their company. That's ultimately what it comes down to: they can do whatever they want with the company. You give me no assurances that they will fail when the company fails. What more failure do you need than the destruction and utter loss of a valuable asset? If I own a company that generates $2 million per year and is valued at around $10 million, I have pretty damned good incentive to keep the thing afloat rather than run it into the ground. My personal loss in destroying the company would be far greater than that of any employee of mine. Executives and owners aren't looking to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. But what exactly is the incentive to keep it afloat? And is your claim really empirically proven? There's no lack of cases where CEOs have tanked the company and made millions in severance/golden parachutes. Clearly if you can run away and make millions then people will. Keeping a job? Getting a new job? Maximizing the value of their compensation (they aren't going to make as much money tanking the company as opposed to keeping/making the company profitable). You're acting as if executives are intentionally destroying companies to make a quick buck, which is ridiculous. Bad management happens. Executives don't always do a good job or get a good result for their company. That doesn't mean they are intentionally destroying their employer. A good read on making a quick buck while destroying companies (among many other things): http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405 Sounds like a left-wing version of "End the Fed". Isn't ending the fed a left-wing position anyways? I thought sam advocated it. At any rate your comment is impotent and frankly irrelevant.
It's more populist, I'd say. Hating on the Fed is more common with Republicans than Democrats.
I don't see why my comment is irrelevant. The RS piece was mainly about bubbles, which is mainly a complaint that in good times money is too easy.
|
On November 07 2013 07:42 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON -- Sen. Rand Paul lashed out at the media Wednesday for its coverage of the plagiarism allegations that have rocked the Kentucky Republican over the last week.
A day after announcing plans to amend the approval process for speeches and op-eds under his name, Paul told National Review he was so frustrated with the negative press that he would have failed reporters if he were their journalism teacher.
"What makes me mad about the whole thing is that I believe there is a difference between errors of omission and errors of intention," Paul said in an interview with National Review's Robert Costa. "We aren’t perfect and we have made errors of omission, but we never intended to mislead anybody."
"I’m being criticized for not having proper attribution, and yet they are able to write stuff that if I were their journalism teacher in college, I would fail them," he added. Source
Hilarious and depressing.
|
On November 07 2013 07:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 07:32 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 07:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 07 2013 05:20 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 05:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 05:04 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:53 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:39 Roe wrote:
[quote]
key word "should"
but how are you going to make sure this happens? (it won't in a free market) they'll keep paying themselves masses even if the company goes under because of their leadership. Discard your faith in the free market already. What are you talking about? Executives don't determine their own salary. The ownership does. If the ownership and the executives are the same people, that's their own fucking business and they can do whatever they want with their company. That's ultimately what it comes down to: they can do whatever they want with the company. You give me no assurances that they will fail when the company fails. What more failure do you need than the destruction and utter loss of a valuable asset? If I own a company that generates $2 million per year and is valued at around $10 million, I have pretty damned good incentive to keep the thing afloat rather than run it into the ground. My personal loss in destroying the company would be far greater than that of any employee of mine. Executives and owners aren't looking to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. But what exactly is the incentive to keep it afloat? And is your claim really empirically proven? There's no lack of cases where CEOs have tanked the company and made millions in severance/golden parachutes. Clearly if you can run away and make millions then people will. Keeping a job? Getting a new job? Maximizing the value of their compensation (they aren't going to make as much money tanking the company as opposed to keeping/making the company profitable). You're acting as if executives are intentionally destroying companies to make a quick buck, which is ridiculous. Bad management happens. Executives don't always do a good job or get a good result for their company. That doesn't mean they are intentionally destroying their employer. A good read on making a quick buck while destroying companies (among many other things): http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405 Sounds like a left-wing version of "End the Fed". Isn't ending the fed a left-wing position anyways? I thought sam advocated it. At any rate your comment is impotent and frankly irrelevant. It's more populist, I'd say. Hating on the Fed is more common with Republicans than Democrats. I don't see why my comment is irrelevant. The RS piece was mainly about bubbles, which is mainly a complaint that in good times money is too easy.
Taibbi has a deeper problem with financialization itself, and that complaint isn't even that controversial (though actually doing anything at all about it of course is).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
