|
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 January 24 2014 18:50 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Sixty-five percent of Americans are dissatisfied with the nation's system of government and how well it works, the highest percentage in Gallup's trend since 2001. Dissatisfaction is up five points since last year, and has edged above the previous high from 2012 (64%). Show nested quote +One reason Americans are dissatisfied with how the government system is working is that they believe it is too big and powerful. Two-thirds of Americans (66%) are unhappy with the size and power of the federal government. These views potentially hamper President Barack Obama's ability to propose large-scale government solutions in his State of the Union speech next week. However, this problem is not a new one for the president. Roughly two-thirds of Americans have expressed this view consistently since at least 2011, after the measure jumped a full 10 points between 2008 and 2011. ![[image loading]](http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/oj_gvgboj0ygjauudrzsnq.png) Slowly, slowly people are starting to get it... http://www.gallup.com/poll/166985/dissatisfied-gov-system-works.aspx
If even a quarter of those that expressed dissatisfaction with the size and power of the government are dissatisfied because it is too small or weak, then you'd have a majority wanting the federal government as strong as it is or stronger.
(in other words, that's not a very meaningful poll question without several follow-up questions that could have been asked instead)
|
On January 25 2014 00:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2014 00:06 nunez wrote:On January 24 2014 23:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 24 2014 22:29 nunez wrote:glory to the CEOs, who we recognize for their exceptional degree of holiness and whose unique, heavenly skillset laid waste to the wages of those filthy technicians. maybe if the technicians instead through some divine intervention were imbued with the magical skills of an ace sales person, and worked really, really hard and good at... sales, they'd maybe, if they were really lucky, get to cup the balls of their CEO at lunch. maybe even work the shaft if the CEO so pleaseth. why would you pay some guy hundreds of thousands of dollars to pick boogers out of your nose. i mean, come on. The bidding war over tech workers is part of the inequality problem in and around Silicon Valley. prostitutes getting paid puts them at an unfair advantage over victims of rape. wtf?
eh? i'm confused, i thought we were exchanging nonsensical non sequitors.
|
On January 25 2014 00:38 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2014 00:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:
So like, hypothetical for xDaunt and Jonny. Is there a breaking point for where salaries become so uneven that it's just downright bad for society and requires political change? I mean, let's base ourselves on some graphs indicating that average ceo:worker pay basically went from 20:1 in 1980 to 200:1 in 2010. Then lets say it increases to 2000:1 in 2040 and 20000:1 in 2070. is that still okay or good? Or is it irrelevant until it gets that far, is it impossible for the market to ever actually screw up? Basically, I can understand that we have different ideas of where a just distribution is - I think even 20:1 is too much and makes no real motivational difference from 10:1, anything beyond that is just wasteful imo, but that's irrelevant. What is relevant is if you can actually envision a roof, a level of income/wealth disparity which is "too much"?
Like what if every low level worker in america requires government benefits in addition to their paycheck to survive, is that good? Or is it bad, but interfering with the market is worse, or is it "neutral"?
Personally I think it's really bad when people who actually work need additional government benefits because there's something emancipating about simply managing on your own. Quality of life is much higher if your salary is $40k and that's that, than if your salary is $20k and you get $20k government benefits (and you're doing the same job in both scenarios), and I think it's thus much wiser to have the redistribution happen through the paycheck than through food stamps and other programs that make you politically dependent and make you feel incapable of managing on your own without government assistance.. Yeah, there is a point where income inequality becomes bad for society. I don't know where it is, but it is not hard to see where some of the stresses are starting to surface. Silicon Valley is just one example, though the real issue there is that the area has become unaffordable for people with blue collar jobs or who otherwise have low paying careers. That said, I'm not going to begrudge workers who contribute immense value to their employers and reap immense compensation as a result. Simply put, capping someone's pay at 10:1 or even 20:1 as you suggest can be gross underpayment for the true value of an individual's service.
Are you familiar with any reliable means to measure CEO performance while he or she is in office? It is my understanding that it is incredibly difficult to tell how much value a CEO adds to a corporation, so boards tend to consider subjective factors in setting compensation. That could explain why even terrible CEOs like Michael Eisner get huge salaries - I'm not sure what he made while he was in office, but he was paid $138 million for being fired by Disney.
|
On January 25 2014 00:38 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2014 00:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:
So like, hypothetical for xDaunt and Jonny. Is there a breaking point for where salaries become so uneven that it's just downright bad for society and requires political change? I mean, let's base ourselves on some graphs indicating that average ceo:worker pay basically went from 20:1 in 1980 to 200:1 in 2010. Then lets say it increases to 2000:1 in 2040 and 20000:1 in 2070. is that still okay or good? Or is it irrelevant until it gets that far, is it impossible for the market to ever actually screw up? Basically, I can understand that we have different ideas of where a just distribution is - I think even 20:1 is too much and makes no real motivational difference from 10:1, anything beyond that is just wasteful imo, but that's irrelevant. What is relevant is if you can actually envision a roof, a level of income/wealth disparity which is "too much"?
Like what if every low level worker in america requires government benefits in addition to their paycheck to survive, is that good? Or is it bad, but interfering with the market is worse, or is it "neutral"?
Personally I think it's really bad when people who actually work need additional government benefits because there's something emancipating about simply managing on your own. Quality of life is much higher if your salary is $40k and that's that, than if your salary is $20k and you get $20k government benefits (and you're doing the same job in both scenarios), and I think it's thus much wiser to have the redistribution happen through the paycheck than through food stamps and other programs that make you politically dependent and make you feel incapable of managing on your own without government assistance.. Yeah, there is a point where income inequality becomes bad for society. I don't know where it is, but it is not hard to see where some of the stresses are starting to surface. Silicon Valley is just one example, though the real issue there is that the area has become unaffordable for people with blue collar jobs or who otherwise have low paying careers. That said, I'm not going to begrudge workers who contribute immense value to their employers and reap immense compensation as a result. Simply put, capping someone's pay at 10:1 or even 20:1 as you suggest can be gross underpayment for the true value of an individual's service.
I doubt anyone reasonable is suggesting that. What is being said however - for the most part - is that a CEO making 400+ times what the average worker in his company is making is not a thing which should be desired.
Robert Reich I thought made some excellent points in his movie "Inequality for all". For example, there are insane similarities between the GFC and the crash which led to the great depression in the 30s - huge income disparity is one of them.
Heck even the World Economic Forum, hardly a leftist think tank or the likes, is saying wealth inequality is one of the most pressing issues nowadays which needs action. The how is the big question. Capping to 10:1 or 20:1 is stupid - I agree.
|
On January 25 2014 01:02 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2014 00:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 25 2014 00:06 nunez wrote:On January 24 2014 23:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 24 2014 22:29 nunez wrote:glory to the CEOs, who we recognize for their exceptional degree of holiness and whose unique, heavenly skillset laid waste to the wages of those filthy technicians. maybe if the technicians instead through some divine intervention were imbued with the magical skills of an ace sales person, and worked really, really hard and good at... sales, they'd maybe, if they were really lucky, get to cup the balls of their CEO at lunch. maybe even work the shaft if the CEO so pleaseth. why would you pay some guy hundreds of thousands of dollars to pick boogers out of your nose. i mean, come on. The bidding war over tech workers is part of the inequality problem in and around Silicon Valley. prostitutes getting paid puts them at an unfair advantage over victims of rape. wtf? eh? i'm confused, i thought we were exchanging nonsensical non sequitors.
Nope, sorry.
|
On January 25 2014 00:42 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2014 18:50 Introvert wrote:WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Sixty-five percent of Americans are dissatisfied with the nation's system of government and how well it works, the highest percentage in Gallup's trend since 2001. Dissatisfaction is up five points since last year, and has edged above the previous high from 2012 (64%). One reason Americans are dissatisfied with how the government system is working is that they believe it is too big and powerful. Two-thirds of Americans (66%) are unhappy with the size and power of the federal government. These views potentially hamper President Barack Obama's ability to propose large-scale government solutions in his State of the Union speech next week. However, this problem is not a new one for the president. Roughly two-thirds of Americans have expressed this view consistently since at least 2011, after the measure jumped a full 10 points between 2008 and 2011. Slowly, slowly people are starting to get it... http://www.gallup.com/poll/166985/dissatisfied-gov-system-works.aspx If even a quarter of those that expressed dissatisfaction with the size and power of the government are dissatisfied because it is too small or weak, then you'd have a majority wanting the federal government as strong as it is or stronger. (in other words, that's not a very meaningful poll question without several follow-up questions that could have been asked instead)
Gallup's own wording indicated this is not true. I know it's a large question, but it's showing a good trend. The government has been growing massively (in terms of power and reach), I find it difficult to be believe that the increase is from people who decided in the last 6 years that it needs to grow even faster.
Edit: I doubt that a substantial portion of those who are concerned think it should be bigger.
|
On January 25 2014 01:11 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2014 00:38 xDaunt wrote:On January 24 2014 00:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:
So like, hypothetical for xDaunt and Jonny. Is there a breaking point for where salaries become so uneven that it's just downright bad for society and requires political change? I mean, let's base ourselves on some graphs indicating that average ceo:worker pay basically went from 20:1 in 1980 to 200:1 in 2010. Then lets say it increases to 2000:1 in 2040 and 20000:1 in 2070. is that still okay or good? Or is it irrelevant until it gets that far, is it impossible for the market to ever actually screw up? Basically, I can understand that we have different ideas of where a just distribution is - I think even 20:1 is too much and makes no real motivational difference from 10:1, anything beyond that is just wasteful imo, but that's irrelevant. What is relevant is if you can actually envision a roof, a level of income/wealth disparity which is "too much"?
Like what if every low level worker in america requires government benefits in addition to their paycheck to survive, is that good? Or is it bad, but interfering with the market is worse, or is it "neutral"?
Personally I think it's really bad when people who actually work need additional government benefits because there's something emancipating about simply managing on your own. Quality of life is much higher if your salary is $40k and that's that, than if your salary is $20k and you get $20k government benefits (and you're doing the same job in both scenarios), and I think it's thus much wiser to have the redistribution happen through the paycheck than through food stamps and other programs that make you politically dependent and make you feel incapable of managing on your own without government assistance.. Yeah, there is a point where income inequality becomes bad for society. I don't know where it is, but it is not hard to see where some of the stresses are starting to surface. Silicon Valley is just one example, though the real issue there is that the area has become unaffordable for people with blue collar jobs or who otherwise have low paying careers. That said, I'm not going to begrudge workers who contribute immense value to their employers and reap immense compensation as a result. Simply put, capping someone's pay at 10:1 or even 20:1 as you suggest can be gross underpayment for the true value of an individual's service. Are you familiar with any reliable means to measure CEO performance while he or she is in office? It is my understanding that it is incredibly difficult to tell how much value a CEO adds to a corporation, so boards tend to consider subjective factors in setting compensation. That could explain why even terrible CEOs like Michael Eisner get huge salaries - I'm not sure what he made while he was in office, but he was paid $138 million for being fired by Disney.
No, I haven't looked for any studies on CEO performance.
That said, what Eisner was paid isn't really out of bounds for what he was doing. Disney is a $100+ billion giant of a company. I don't know what he was paid overall, but I bet that it was less than 1% of the value of the asset that he was managing. There aren't many people with the experience and skillset to effectively manage a company like Disney. Thus, you'd expect a candidate for such a position to command a very large compensation package.
|
On January 25 2014 02:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2014 01:11 Mercy13 wrote:On January 25 2014 00:38 xDaunt wrote:On January 24 2014 00:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:
So like, hypothetical for xDaunt and Jonny. Is there a breaking point for where salaries become so uneven that it's just downright bad for society and requires political change? I mean, let's base ourselves on some graphs indicating that average ceo:worker pay basically went from 20:1 in 1980 to 200:1 in 2010. Then lets say it increases to 2000:1 in 2040 and 20000:1 in 2070. is that still okay or good? Or is it irrelevant until it gets that far, is it impossible for the market to ever actually screw up? Basically, I can understand that we have different ideas of where a just distribution is - I think even 20:1 is too much and makes no real motivational difference from 10:1, anything beyond that is just wasteful imo, but that's irrelevant. What is relevant is if you can actually envision a roof, a level of income/wealth disparity which is "too much"?
Like what if every low level worker in america requires government benefits in addition to their paycheck to survive, is that good? Or is it bad, but interfering with the market is worse, or is it "neutral"?
Personally I think it's really bad when people who actually work need additional government benefits because there's something emancipating about simply managing on your own. Quality of life is much higher if your salary is $40k and that's that, than if your salary is $20k and you get $20k government benefits (and you're doing the same job in both scenarios), and I think it's thus much wiser to have the redistribution happen through the paycheck than through food stamps and other programs that make you politically dependent and make you feel incapable of managing on your own without government assistance.. Yeah, there is a point where income inequality becomes bad for society. I don't know where it is, but it is not hard to see where some of the stresses are starting to surface. Silicon Valley is just one example, though the real issue there is that the area has become unaffordable for people with blue collar jobs or who otherwise have low paying careers. That said, I'm not going to begrudge workers who contribute immense value to their employers and reap immense compensation as a result. Simply put, capping someone's pay at 10:1 or even 20:1 as you suggest can be gross underpayment for the true value of an individual's service. Are you familiar with any reliable means to measure CEO performance while he or she is in office? It is my understanding that it is incredibly difficult to tell how much value a CEO adds to a corporation, so boards tend to consider subjective factors in setting compensation. That could explain why even terrible CEOs like Michael Eisner get huge salaries - I'm not sure what he made while he was in office, but he was paid $138 million for being fired by Disney. No, I haven't looked for any studies on CEO performance. That said, what Eisner was paid isn't really out of bounds for what he was doing. Disney is a $100+ billion giant of a company. I don't know what he was paid overall, but I bet that it was less than 1% of the value of the asset that he was managing. There aren't many people with the experience and skillset to effectively manage a company like Disney. Thus, you'd expect a candidate for such a position to command a very large compensation package.
Yes, I would. However, just how large it should be is a difficult question and I don't think boards have a consistent method for determining how well their CEO is performing.
I guess my point is that you keep saying that CEO compensation is high because the amount of value a good CEO adds to a company justifies a high salary. This may be true, but it is irrelevant when the board doesn't have a reliable means of determining exactly how well their CEO is performing. As a result, boards set CEO compensation somewhat arbitrarily, and the 400:1 ratio of CEO pay to worker pay is not necessarily be justified.
|
Also since when is "how much value someone generates for a company" like the only thing that matters? For what I care a doctor or a nurse are doing an infinitely more useful job than some random CEO. It really troubles me that like 90% of the people in this thread axiomatically assume that how important someones role in society is basically doesn't matter and it's just about how many juicy dollars he creates.
|
On January 25 2014 02:58 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2014 02:48 xDaunt wrote:On January 25 2014 01:11 Mercy13 wrote:On January 25 2014 00:38 xDaunt wrote:On January 24 2014 00:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:
So like, hypothetical for xDaunt and Jonny. Is there a breaking point for where salaries become so uneven that it's just downright bad for society and requires political change? I mean, let's base ourselves on some graphs indicating that average ceo:worker pay basically went from 20:1 in 1980 to 200:1 in 2010. Then lets say it increases to 2000:1 in 2040 and 20000:1 in 2070. is that still okay or good? Or is it irrelevant until it gets that far, is it impossible for the market to ever actually screw up? Basically, I can understand that we have different ideas of where a just distribution is - I think even 20:1 is too much and makes no real motivational difference from 10:1, anything beyond that is just wasteful imo, but that's irrelevant. What is relevant is if you can actually envision a roof, a level of income/wealth disparity which is "too much"?
Like what if every low level worker in america requires government benefits in addition to their paycheck to survive, is that good? Or is it bad, but interfering with the market is worse, or is it "neutral"?
Personally I think it's really bad when people who actually work need additional government benefits because there's something emancipating about simply managing on your own. Quality of life is much higher if your salary is $40k and that's that, than if your salary is $20k and you get $20k government benefits (and you're doing the same job in both scenarios), and I think it's thus much wiser to have the redistribution happen through the paycheck than through food stamps and other programs that make you politically dependent and make you feel incapable of managing on your own without government assistance.. Yeah, there is a point where income inequality becomes bad for society. I don't know where it is, but it is not hard to see where some of the stresses are starting to surface. Silicon Valley is just one example, though the real issue there is that the area has become unaffordable for people with blue collar jobs or who otherwise have low paying careers. That said, I'm not going to begrudge workers who contribute immense value to their employers and reap immense compensation as a result. Simply put, capping someone's pay at 10:1 or even 20:1 as you suggest can be gross underpayment for the true value of an individual's service. Are you familiar with any reliable means to measure CEO performance while he or she is in office? It is my understanding that it is incredibly difficult to tell how much value a CEO adds to a corporation, so boards tend to consider subjective factors in setting compensation. That could explain why even terrible CEOs like Michael Eisner get huge salaries - I'm not sure what he made while he was in office, but he was paid $138 million for being fired by Disney. No, I haven't looked for any studies on CEO performance. That said, what Eisner was paid isn't really out of bounds for what he was doing. Disney is a $100+ billion giant of a company. I don't know what he was paid overall, but I bet that it was less than 1% of the value of the asset that he was managing. There aren't many people with the experience and skillset to effectively manage a company like Disney. Thus, you'd expect a candidate for such a position to command a very large compensation package. Yes, I would. However, just how large it should be is a difficult question and I don't think boards have a consistent method for determining how well their CEO is performing. I guess my point is that you keep saying that CEO compensation is high because the amount of value a good CEO adds to a company justifies a high salary. This may be true, but it is irrelevant when the board doesn't have a reliable means of determining exactly how well their CEO is performing. As a result, boards set CEO compensation somewhat arbitrarily, and the 400:1 ratio of CEO pay to worker pay is not necessarily be justified.
I disagree. That's what accountants are for. Large corporations spend a lot of time and resources internally auditing and tracking productivity, performance, and profitability. They know exactly what's going on internally.
|
On January 25 2014 03:03 Nyxisto wrote:
Also since when is "how much value someone generates for a company" like the only thing that matters? For what I care a doctor or a nurse are doing an infinitely more useful job than some random CEO. It really troubles me that like 90% of the people in this thread axiomatically assume that how important someones role in society is basically doesn't matter and it's just about how many juicy dollars he creates.
You already know the answer to this. Everything has a price.
|
Spain118 Posts
On January 25 2014 03:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2014 02:58 Mercy13 wrote:On January 25 2014 02:48 xDaunt wrote:On January 25 2014 01:11 Mercy13 wrote:On January 25 2014 00:38 xDaunt wrote:On January 24 2014 00:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:
So like, hypothetical for xDaunt and Jonny. Is there a breaking point for where salaries become so uneven that it's just downright bad for society and requires political change? I mean, let's base ourselves on some graphs indicating that average ceo:worker pay basically went from 20:1 in 1980 to 200:1 in 2010. Then lets say it increases to 2000:1 in 2040 and 20000:1 in 2070. is that still okay or good? Or is it irrelevant until it gets that far, is it impossible for the market to ever actually screw up? Basically, I can understand that we have different ideas of where a just distribution is - I think even 20:1 is too much and makes no real motivational difference from 10:1, anything beyond that is just wasteful imo, but that's irrelevant. What is relevant is if you can actually envision a roof, a level of income/wealth disparity which is "too much"?
Like what if every low level worker in america requires government benefits in addition to their paycheck to survive, is that good? Or is it bad, but interfering with the market is worse, or is it "neutral"?
Personally I think it's really bad when people who actually work need additional government benefits because there's something emancipating about simply managing on your own. Quality of life is much higher if your salary is $40k and that's that, than if your salary is $20k and you get $20k government benefits (and you're doing the same job in both scenarios), and I think it's thus much wiser to have the redistribution happen through the paycheck than through food stamps and other programs that make you politically dependent and make you feel incapable of managing on your own without government assistance.. Yeah, there is a point where income inequality becomes bad for society. I don't know where it is, but it is not hard to see where some of the stresses are starting to surface. Silicon Valley is just one example, though the real issue there is that the area has become unaffordable for people with blue collar jobs or who otherwise have low paying careers. That said, I'm not going to begrudge workers who contribute immense value to their employers and reap immense compensation as a result. Simply put, capping someone's pay at 10:1 or even 20:1 as you suggest can be gross underpayment for the true value of an individual's service. Are you familiar with any reliable means to measure CEO performance while he or she is in office? It is my understanding that it is incredibly difficult to tell how much value a CEO adds to a corporation, so boards tend to consider subjective factors in setting compensation. That could explain why even terrible CEOs like Michael Eisner get huge salaries - I'm not sure what he made while he was in office, but he was paid $138 million for being fired by Disney. No, I haven't looked for any studies on CEO performance. That said, what Eisner was paid isn't really out of bounds for what he was doing. Disney is a $100+ billion giant of a company. I don't know what he was paid overall, but I bet that it was less than 1% of the value of the asset that he was managing. There aren't many people with the experience and skillset to effectively manage a company like Disney. Thus, you'd expect a candidate for such a position to command a very large compensation package. Yes, I would. However, just how large it should be is a difficult question and I don't think boards have a consistent method for determining how well their CEO is performing. I guess my point is that you keep saying that CEO compensation is high because the amount of value a good CEO adds to a company justifies a high salary. This may be true, but it is irrelevant when the board doesn't have a reliable means of determining exactly how well their CEO is performing. As a result, boards set CEO compensation somewhat arbitrarily, and the 400:1 ratio of CEO pay to worker pay is not necessarily be justified. I disagree. That's what accountants are for. Large corporations spend a lot of time and resources internally auditing and tracking productivity, performance, and profitability. They know exactly what's going on internally.
And how much of that can be attributed to the CEO?
|
On January 25 2014 03:12 FallenStar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2014 03:04 xDaunt wrote:On January 25 2014 02:58 Mercy13 wrote:On January 25 2014 02:48 xDaunt wrote:On January 25 2014 01:11 Mercy13 wrote:On January 25 2014 00:38 xDaunt wrote:On January 24 2014 00:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:
So like, hypothetical for xDaunt and Jonny. Is there a breaking point for where salaries become so uneven that it's just downright bad for society and requires political change? I mean, let's base ourselves on some graphs indicating that average ceo:worker pay basically went from 20:1 in 1980 to 200:1 in 2010. Then lets say it increases to 2000:1 in 2040 and 20000:1 in 2070. is that still okay or good? Or is it irrelevant until it gets that far, is it impossible for the market to ever actually screw up? Basically, I can understand that we have different ideas of where a just distribution is - I think even 20:1 is too much and makes no real motivational difference from 10:1, anything beyond that is just wasteful imo, but that's irrelevant. What is relevant is if you can actually envision a roof, a level of income/wealth disparity which is "too much"?
Like what if every low level worker in america requires government benefits in addition to their paycheck to survive, is that good? Or is it bad, but interfering with the market is worse, or is it "neutral"?
Personally I think it's really bad when people who actually work need additional government benefits because there's something emancipating about simply managing on your own. Quality of life is much higher if your salary is $40k and that's that, than if your salary is $20k and you get $20k government benefits (and you're doing the same job in both scenarios), and I think it's thus much wiser to have the redistribution happen through the paycheck than through food stamps and other programs that make you politically dependent and make you feel incapable of managing on your own without government assistance.. Yeah, there is a point where income inequality becomes bad for society. I don't know where it is, but it is not hard to see where some of the stresses are starting to surface. Silicon Valley is just one example, though the real issue there is that the area has become unaffordable for people with blue collar jobs or who otherwise have low paying careers. That said, I'm not going to begrudge workers who contribute immense value to their employers and reap immense compensation as a result. Simply put, capping someone's pay at 10:1 or even 20:1 as you suggest can be gross underpayment for the true value of an individual's service. Are you familiar with any reliable means to measure CEO performance while he or she is in office? It is my understanding that it is incredibly difficult to tell how much value a CEO adds to a corporation, so boards tend to consider subjective factors in setting compensation. That could explain why even terrible CEOs like Michael Eisner get huge salaries - I'm not sure what he made while he was in office, but he was paid $138 million for being fired by Disney. No, I haven't looked for any studies on CEO performance. That said, what Eisner was paid isn't really out of bounds for what he was doing. Disney is a $100+ billion giant of a company. I don't know what he was paid overall, but I bet that it was less than 1% of the value of the asset that he was managing. There aren't many people with the experience and skillset to effectively manage a company like Disney. Thus, you'd expect a candidate for such a position to command a very large compensation package. Yes, I would. However, just how large it should be is a difficult question and I don't think boards have a consistent method for determining how well their CEO is performing. I guess my point is that you keep saying that CEO compensation is high because the amount of value a good CEO adds to a company justifies a high salary. This may be true, but it is irrelevant when the board doesn't have a reliable means of determining exactly how well their CEO is performing. As a result, boards set CEO compensation somewhat arbitrarily, and the 400:1 ratio of CEO pay to worker pay is not necessarily be justified. I disagree. That's what accountants are for. Large corporations spend a lot of time and resources internally auditing and tracking productivity, performance, and profitability. They know exactly what's going on internally. And how much of that can be attributed to the CEO?
In which case? Sometimes CEOs are going to have positive impacts upon their companies. Sometimes they'll have negative impacts. I don't know what the figures are, but I wouldn't be surprised if a good CEO added 1-5% to the value of the company. If you look at someone like Steve Jobs who created the whole vision for Apple and implemented it, his value added would be practically incalculable as a percentage (we're talking XXXX%).
|
On January 25 2014 03:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2014 02:58 Mercy13 wrote:On January 25 2014 02:48 xDaunt wrote:On January 25 2014 01:11 Mercy13 wrote:On January 25 2014 00:38 xDaunt wrote:On January 24 2014 00:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:
So like, hypothetical for xDaunt and Jonny. Is there a breaking point for where salaries become so uneven that it's just downright bad for society and requires political change? I mean, let's base ourselves on some graphs indicating that average ceo:worker pay basically went from 20:1 in 1980 to 200:1 in 2010. Then lets say it increases to 2000:1 in 2040 and 20000:1 in 2070. is that still okay or good? Or is it irrelevant until it gets that far, is it impossible for the market to ever actually screw up? Basically, I can understand that we have different ideas of where a just distribution is - I think even 20:1 is too much and makes no real motivational difference from 10:1, anything beyond that is just wasteful imo, but that's irrelevant. What is relevant is if you can actually envision a roof, a level of income/wealth disparity which is "too much"?
Like what if every low level worker in america requires government benefits in addition to their paycheck to survive, is that good? Or is it bad, but interfering with the market is worse, or is it "neutral"?
Personally I think it's really bad when people who actually work need additional government benefits because there's something emancipating about simply managing on your own. Quality of life is much higher if your salary is $40k and that's that, than if your salary is $20k and you get $20k government benefits (and you're doing the same job in both scenarios), and I think it's thus much wiser to have the redistribution happen through the paycheck than through food stamps and other programs that make you politically dependent and make you feel incapable of managing on your own without government assistance.. Yeah, there is a point where income inequality becomes bad for society. I don't know where it is, but it is not hard to see where some of the stresses are starting to surface. Silicon Valley is just one example, though the real issue there is that the area has become unaffordable for people with blue collar jobs or who otherwise have low paying careers. That said, I'm not going to begrudge workers who contribute immense value to their employers and reap immense compensation as a result. Simply put, capping someone's pay at 10:1 or even 20:1 as you suggest can be gross underpayment for the true value of an individual's service. Are you familiar with any reliable means to measure CEO performance while he or she is in office? It is my understanding that it is incredibly difficult to tell how much value a CEO adds to a corporation, so boards tend to consider subjective factors in setting compensation. That could explain why even terrible CEOs like Michael Eisner get huge salaries - I'm not sure what he made while he was in office, but he was paid $138 million for being fired by Disney. No, I haven't looked for any studies on CEO performance. That said, what Eisner was paid isn't really out of bounds for what he was doing. Disney is a $100+ billion giant of a company. I don't know what he was paid overall, but I bet that it was less than 1% of the value of the asset that he was managing. There aren't many people with the experience and skillset to effectively manage a company like Disney. Thus, you'd expect a candidate for such a position to command a very large compensation package. Yes, I would. However, just how large it should be is a difficult question and I don't think boards have a consistent method for determining how well their CEO is performing. I guess my point is that you keep saying that CEO compensation is high because the amount of value a good CEO adds to a company justifies a high salary. This may be true, but it is irrelevant when the board doesn't have a reliable means of determining exactly how well their CEO is performing. As a result, boards set CEO compensation somewhat arbitrarily, and the 400:1 ratio of CEO pay to worker pay is not necessarily be justified. I disagree. That's what accountants are for. Large corporations spend a lot of time and resources internally auditing and tracking productivity, performance, and profitability. They know exactly what's going on internally.
Accountants know what is going on, but there isn't a good way to determine how the CEO is responsible. Changes from the top may take years to take effect, and CEOs often face both positive and negative factors beyond their control. How would you propose to separate out the performance of the CEO from market fluctuations, talent of the rest of the executive team, efforts of his or her predecessor, etc., especially when the average tenure for Fortune 500 CEOs is only about 5 years?
Why do you think so many boards focus on stock price? It's an easily understood objective factor that they can use to set compensation, but it is a notoriously bad means of judging CEO performance.
Edit:
In which case? Sometimes CEOs are going to have positive impacts upon their companies. Sometimes they'll have negative impacts. I don't know what the figures are, but I wouldn't be surprised if a good CEO added 1-5% to the value of the company. If you look at someone like Steve Jobs who created the whole vision for Apple and implemented it, his value added would be practically incalculable as a percentage (we're talking XXXX%).
My concern is that there is no reliable means to determine whether a particular CEO is adding 1-5%, 10%, or nothing to the value of a business.
|
Steve Jobs is quite clearly an outlier, as his interactions with Apple amount to far more than merely those of a CEO.
|
On January 25 2014 03:20 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2014 03:04 xDaunt wrote:On January 25 2014 02:58 Mercy13 wrote:On January 25 2014 02:48 xDaunt wrote:On January 25 2014 01:11 Mercy13 wrote:On January 25 2014 00:38 xDaunt wrote:On January 24 2014 00:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:
So like, hypothetical for xDaunt and Jonny. Is there a breaking point for where salaries become so uneven that it's just downright bad for society and requires political change? I mean, let's base ourselves on some graphs indicating that average ceo:worker pay basically went from 20:1 in 1980 to 200:1 in 2010. Then lets say it increases to 2000:1 in 2040 and 20000:1 in 2070. is that still okay or good? Or is it irrelevant until it gets that far, is it impossible for the market to ever actually screw up? Basically, I can understand that we have different ideas of where a just distribution is - I think even 20:1 is too much and makes no real motivational difference from 10:1, anything beyond that is just wasteful imo, but that's irrelevant. What is relevant is if you can actually envision a roof, a level of income/wealth disparity which is "too much"?
Like what if every low level worker in america requires government benefits in addition to their paycheck to survive, is that good? Or is it bad, but interfering with the market is worse, or is it "neutral"?
Personally I think it's really bad when people who actually work need additional government benefits because there's something emancipating about simply managing on your own. Quality of life is much higher if your salary is $40k and that's that, than if your salary is $20k and you get $20k government benefits (and you're doing the same job in both scenarios), and I think it's thus much wiser to have the redistribution happen through the paycheck than through food stamps and other programs that make you politically dependent and make you feel incapable of managing on your own without government assistance.. Yeah, there is a point where income inequality becomes bad for society. I don't know where it is, but it is not hard to see where some of the stresses are starting to surface. Silicon Valley is just one example, though the real issue there is that the area has become unaffordable for people with blue collar jobs or who otherwise have low paying careers. That said, I'm not going to begrudge workers who contribute immense value to their employers and reap immense compensation as a result. Simply put, capping someone's pay at 10:1 or even 20:1 as you suggest can be gross underpayment for the true value of an individual's service. Are you familiar with any reliable means to measure CEO performance while he or she is in office? It is my understanding that it is incredibly difficult to tell how much value a CEO adds to a corporation, so boards tend to consider subjective factors in setting compensation. That could explain why even terrible CEOs like Michael Eisner get huge salaries - I'm not sure what he made while he was in office, but he was paid $138 million for being fired by Disney. No, I haven't looked for any studies on CEO performance. That said, what Eisner was paid isn't really out of bounds for what he was doing. Disney is a $100+ billion giant of a company. I don't know what he was paid overall, but I bet that it was less than 1% of the value of the asset that he was managing. There aren't many people with the experience and skillset to effectively manage a company like Disney. Thus, you'd expect a candidate for such a position to command a very large compensation package. Yes, I would. However, just how large it should be is a difficult question and I don't think boards have a consistent method for determining how well their CEO is performing. I guess my point is that you keep saying that CEO compensation is high because the amount of value a good CEO adds to a company justifies a high salary. This may be true, but it is irrelevant when the board doesn't have a reliable means of determining exactly how well their CEO is performing. As a result, boards set CEO compensation somewhat arbitrarily, and the 400:1 ratio of CEO pay to worker pay is not necessarily be justified. I disagree. That's what accountants are for. Large corporations spend a lot of time and resources internally auditing and tracking productivity, performance, and profitability. They know exactly what's going on internally. Accountants know what is going on, but there isn't a good way to determine how the CEO is responsible. Changes from the top may take years to take effect, and CEOs often face both positive and negative factors beyond their control. How would you propose to separate out the performance of the CEO from market fluctuations, talent of the rest of the executive team, efforts of his or her predecessor, etc., especially when the average tenure for Fortune 500 CEOs is only about 5 years? Why do you think so many boards focus on stock price? It's an easily understood objective factor that they can use to set compensation, but it is a notoriously bad means of judging CEO performance.
This is also incorrect. Just think about what management does in the most generic way possible. Every quarter (or more frequently in some circumstances) management is presented with a snapshot of the status of the corporation. It's then up to management -- led by the CEO -- to look at that snapshot and create a plan for improving the company. Management -- again led by the CEO -- is then responsible for implementing that plan. By the time that the next snapshot is taken, there's either improvement or there's not. I mean fuck, it's not like CEO's just play golf every day.
|
On January 25 2014 03:20 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2014 03:04 xDaunt wrote:On January 25 2014 02:58 Mercy13 wrote:On January 25 2014 02:48 xDaunt wrote:On January 25 2014 01:11 Mercy13 wrote:On January 25 2014 00:38 xDaunt wrote:On January 24 2014 00:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:
So like, hypothetical for xDaunt and Jonny. Is there a breaking point for where salaries become so uneven that it's just downright bad for society and requires political change? I mean, let's base ourselves on some graphs indicating that average ceo:worker pay basically went from 20:1 in 1980 to 200:1 in 2010. Then lets say it increases to 2000:1 in 2040 and 20000:1 in 2070. is that still okay or good? Or is it irrelevant until it gets that far, is it impossible for the market to ever actually screw up? Basically, I can understand that we have different ideas of where a just distribution is - I think even 20:1 is too much and makes no real motivational difference from 10:1, anything beyond that is just wasteful imo, but that's irrelevant. What is relevant is if you can actually envision a roof, a level of income/wealth disparity which is "too much"?
Like what if every low level worker in america requires government benefits in addition to their paycheck to survive, is that good? Or is it bad, but interfering with the market is worse, or is it "neutral"?
Personally I think it's really bad when people who actually work need additional government benefits because there's something emancipating about simply managing on your own. Quality of life is much higher if your salary is $40k and that's that, than if your salary is $20k and you get $20k government benefits (and you're doing the same job in both scenarios), and I think it's thus much wiser to have the redistribution happen through the paycheck than through food stamps and other programs that make you politically dependent and make you feel incapable of managing on your own without government assistance.. Yeah, there is a point where income inequality becomes bad for society. I don't know where it is, but it is not hard to see where some of the stresses are starting to surface. Silicon Valley is just one example, though the real issue there is that the area has become unaffordable for people with blue collar jobs or who otherwise have low paying careers. That said, I'm not going to begrudge workers who contribute immense value to their employers and reap immense compensation as a result. Simply put, capping someone's pay at 10:1 or even 20:1 as you suggest can be gross underpayment for the true value of an individual's service. Are you familiar with any reliable means to measure CEO performance while he or she is in office? It is my understanding that it is incredibly difficult to tell how much value a CEO adds to a corporation, so boards tend to consider subjective factors in setting compensation. That could explain why even terrible CEOs like Michael Eisner get huge salaries - I'm not sure what he made while he was in office, but he was paid $138 million for being fired by Disney. No, I haven't looked for any studies on CEO performance. That said, what Eisner was paid isn't really out of bounds for what he was doing. Disney is a $100+ billion giant of a company. I don't know what he was paid overall, but I bet that it was less than 1% of the value of the asset that he was managing. There aren't many people with the experience and skillset to effectively manage a company like Disney. Thus, you'd expect a candidate for such a position to command a very large compensation package. Yes, I would. However, just how large it should be is a difficult question and I don't think boards have a consistent method for determining how well their CEO is performing. I guess my point is that you keep saying that CEO compensation is high because the amount of value a good CEO adds to a company justifies a high salary. This may be true, but it is irrelevant when the board doesn't have a reliable means of determining exactly how well their CEO is performing. As a result, boards set CEO compensation somewhat arbitrarily, and the 400:1 ratio of CEO pay to worker pay is not necessarily be justified. I disagree. That's what accountants are for. Large corporations spend a lot of time and resources internally auditing and tracking productivity, performance, and profitability. They know exactly what's going on internally. Accountants know what is going on, but there isn't a good way to determine how the CEO is responsible. Changes from the top may take years to take effect, and CEOs often face both positive and negative factors beyond their control. How would you propose to separate out the performance of the CEO from market fluctuations, talent of the rest of the executive team, efforts of his or her predecessor, etc., especially when the average tenure for Fortune 500 CEOs is only about 5 years? Why do you think so many boards focus on stock price? It's an easily understood objective factor that they can use to set compensation, but it is a notoriously bad means of judging CEO performance.
Stock price gets focused on a lot as a measure of company performance (which the CEO is responsible for) and shareholder's (the owners) desires.
Typically a lot of work gets put into executive pay packages. There's no scientific equation for determining the "true" price that a CEO should be paid, so it's a lot of educated opinion making.
|
On January 25 2014 03:25 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2014 03:20 Mercy13 wrote:On January 25 2014 03:04 xDaunt wrote:On January 25 2014 02:58 Mercy13 wrote:On January 25 2014 02:48 xDaunt wrote:On January 25 2014 01:11 Mercy13 wrote:On January 25 2014 00:38 xDaunt wrote:On January 24 2014 00:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:
So like, hypothetical for xDaunt and Jonny. Is there a breaking point for where salaries become so uneven that it's just downright bad for society and requires political change? I mean, let's base ourselves on some graphs indicating that average ceo:worker pay basically went from 20:1 in 1980 to 200:1 in 2010. Then lets say it increases to 2000:1 in 2040 and 20000:1 in 2070. is that still okay or good? Or is it irrelevant until it gets that far, is it impossible for the market to ever actually screw up? Basically, I can understand that we have different ideas of where a just distribution is - I think even 20:1 is too much and makes no real motivational difference from 10:1, anything beyond that is just wasteful imo, but that's irrelevant. What is relevant is if you can actually envision a roof, a level of income/wealth disparity which is "too much"?
Like what if every low level worker in america requires government benefits in addition to their paycheck to survive, is that good? Or is it bad, but interfering with the market is worse, or is it "neutral"?
Personally I think it's really bad when people who actually work need additional government benefits because there's something emancipating about simply managing on your own. Quality of life is much higher if your salary is $40k and that's that, than if your salary is $20k and you get $20k government benefits (and you're doing the same job in both scenarios), and I think it's thus much wiser to have the redistribution happen through the paycheck than through food stamps and other programs that make you politically dependent and make you feel incapable of managing on your own without government assistance.. Yeah, there is a point where income inequality becomes bad for society. I don't know where it is, but it is not hard to see where some of the stresses are starting to surface. Silicon Valley is just one example, though the real issue there is that the area has become unaffordable for people with blue collar jobs or who otherwise have low paying careers. That said, I'm not going to begrudge workers who contribute immense value to their employers and reap immense compensation as a result. Simply put, capping someone's pay at 10:1 or even 20:1 as you suggest can be gross underpayment for the true value of an individual's service. Are you familiar with any reliable means to measure CEO performance while he or she is in office? It is my understanding that it is incredibly difficult to tell how much value a CEO adds to a corporation, so boards tend to consider subjective factors in setting compensation. That could explain why even terrible CEOs like Michael Eisner get huge salaries - I'm not sure what he made while he was in office, but he was paid $138 million for being fired by Disney. No, I haven't looked for any studies on CEO performance. That said, what Eisner was paid isn't really out of bounds for what he was doing. Disney is a $100+ billion giant of a company. I don't know what he was paid overall, but I bet that it was less than 1% of the value of the asset that he was managing. There aren't many people with the experience and skillset to effectively manage a company like Disney. Thus, you'd expect a candidate for such a position to command a very large compensation package. Yes, I would. However, just how large it should be is a difficult question and I don't think boards have a consistent method for determining how well their CEO is performing. I guess my point is that you keep saying that CEO compensation is high because the amount of value a good CEO adds to a company justifies a high salary. This may be true, but it is irrelevant when the board doesn't have a reliable means of determining exactly how well their CEO is performing. As a result, boards set CEO compensation somewhat arbitrarily, and the 400:1 ratio of CEO pay to worker pay is not necessarily be justified. I disagree. That's what accountants are for. Large corporations spend a lot of time and resources internally auditing and tracking productivity, performance, and profitability. They know exactly what's going on internally. Accountants know what is going on, but there isn't a good way to determine how the CEO is responsible. Changes from the top may take years to take effect, and CEOs often face both positive and negative factors beyond their control. How would you propose to separate out the performance of the CEO from market fluctuations, talent of the rest of the executive team, efforts of his or her predecessor, etc., especially when the average tenure for Fortune 500 CEOs is only about 5 years? Why do you think so many boards focus on stock price? It's an easily understood objective factor that they can use to set compensation, but it is a notoriously bad means of judging CEO performance. This is also incorrect. Just think about what management does in the most generic way possible. Every quarter (or more frequently in some circumstances) management is presented with a snapshot of the status of the corporation. It's then up to management -- led by the CEO -- to look at that snapshot and create a plan for improving the company. Management -- again led by the CEO -- is then responsible for implementing that plan. By the time that the next snapshot is taken, there's either improvement or there's not. I mean fuck, it's not like CEO's just play golf every day.
Is this your opinion, or have you found literature on the subject? There is plenty out there which suggests that CEOs have a significant impact on the success of a firm. However, I can't find anything which suggests that it is easy to evaluate individual CEOs.
|
http://www.businessinsider.com/eric-schmidt-on-inequality-2014-1
Pretty relevant as we are on the topic anyway.
So if we'd actually do something against the rising inequality lower class would profit, middle class would profit, hell even the economy would profit. Just some rich guys would be worse off. (Not to mention that worse off in this case doesn't actually mean anything, as they have an practically infinite amount of money anyway) So why aren't we doing anything?
|
On January 25 2014 03:54 Nyxisto wrote:http://www.businessinsider.com/eric-schmidt-on-inequality-2014-1Pretty relevant as we are on the topic anyway. So if we'd actually do something against the rising inequality lower class would profit, middle class would profit, hell even the economy would profit. Just some rich guys would be worse off. (Not to mention that worse off in this case doesn't actually mean anything, as they have an practically infinite amount of money anyway) So why aren't we doing anything?
All the things we're doing, both new and old, don't count?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
