|
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. |
United States41117 Posts
Three million Americans have now enrolled in private coverage through Obamacare, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Friday, reflecting a continued increase in sign-ups through the health care reform law.
Sebelius announced the new enrollment number during her remarks in Jacksonville, Fla., and they were reported by Bloomberg's Alex Wayne on Twitter. An administration official confirmed the figure to TPM.
The enrollment total as of Dec. 28 was 2.2 million, according to a report released earlier this month by HHS. That would indicate that at least 800,000 people have enrolled in the following weeks.
Source
|
On January 25 2014 04:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +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?
Well if these "things we're doing" would count, the distribution wouldn't look like this:
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/2008_Top1percentUSA.png/300px-2008_Top1percentUSA.png)
(Keep in mind this, as ridiculous as it already is, is only income distribution and not wealth distribution, which is completely off the charts)
|
On January 25 2014 03:48 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2014 03:25 xDaunt wrote: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.
So what exactly are you taking issue with? If you acknowledge the value of good management and if you acknowledge that the CEO is the one who is responsible for good management, then does it not follow that CEOs of large corporations should command huge compensation packages?
|
On January 25 2014 04:30 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2014 04:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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? Well if these "things we're doing" would count, the distribution wouldn't look like this: (Keep in mind this, as ridiculous as it already is, is only income distribution and not wealth distribution, which is completely off the charts)
If that's your complaint than the answer is that there aren't ezpz simple answers.
|
On January 25 2014 04:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2014 04:30 Nyxisto wrote:On January 25 2014 04:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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? Well if these "things we're doing" would count, the distribution wouldn't look like this: (Keep in mind this, as ridiculous as it already is, is only income distribution and not wealth distribution, which is completely off the charts) If that's your complaint than the answer is that there aren't ezpz simple answers.
I think one possible solution is pretty straight forward: Tax the shit out of high income earners (the USA had an income tax of 90% before our neoc- cons/liberals arrived) , make an international effort to get rid of tax evasion, push for higher worker unions(instead of destroying them) and push for higher wages.
It's not the solution that's hard to find, it's actually finding people that have a minimum of decency left in them to make it happen.
|
On January 25 2014 04:44 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2014 04:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 25 2014 04:30 Nyxisto wrote:On January 25 2014 04:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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? Well if these "things we're doing" would count, the distribution wouldn't look like this: (Keep in mind this, as ridiculous as it already is, is only income distribution and not wealth distribution, which is completely off the charts) If that's your complaint than the answer is that there aren't ezpz simple answers. I think one possible solution is pretty straight forward: Tax the shit out of high income earners (the USA had an income tax of 90% before our neoc- cons/liberals arrived) , make an international effort to get rid of tax evasion, push for higher worker unions(instead of destroying them) and push for higher wages. It's not the solution that's hard to find, it's actually finding people that have a minimum of decency to execute them.
We've been increasing taxes on the rich, lowering them on the poor, increasing benefits to low income workers and reforming the healthcare system, which if successful, will remove one of the biggest headwinds to wage growth.
But, herp-derp, we're doing *nothing* ...
What's Europe been up to lately? Putting poor countries in debtor's prison, pussyfooting around a banking crisis for 5+ years and cutting wages for competitiveness. How's that been working?
|
On January 25 2014 04:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
What's Europe been up to lately? Putting poor countries in debtor's prison, pussyfooting around a banking crisis for 5+ years and cutting wages for competitiveness. How's that been working?
I wasn't trying to bash the US. Europe is having the exact same problems. But as this is the US politics thread I just took the US charts. Europe's don't look much different.
And yes we're handing out benefits and all, but we need to multiply our efforts because the net result is still horrible.
|
United States41117 Posts
Republicans may seek to tie a debt ceiling increase to legislation that could sabotage Obamacare with higher premiums, House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) told reporters.
"There are issues with Obamacare," Ryan said Thursday at a San Antonio event, as quoted by Politico. "A lot of folks don't realize there could be some massive insurance company bailouts in the near future with Obamacare that a lot of taxpayers probably didn’t know about that we don’t want to see happen. That’s one of the issues that's in the realm of possibility. There are a lot of things ... that are being discussed but its just not in our interest to negotiate in the media."
The "insurance company bailout" is a reference to a burgeoning Republican effort to eliminate a stability mechanism in Obamacare -- known as "risk corridors" -- that is aimed at holding down premiums in the first few years of the law's insurance marketplaces. It is financed by insurers who enroll healthier patients and pays out insurers who enroll sicker patients. But it does not have to be deficit neutral if the overall pool of consumers is sicker than projected (as early estimates suggest is so far the case).
Ryan's comments come on the heels of indications by Speaker John Boehner's
(R-OH) office and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) that Republicans won't agree to raise the debt limit -- the congressionally mandated limit on how much debt the federal government can incur -- without policy add-ons. The House budget chief provided the first indication of what Republicans might conceivably ask for in exchange for a debt limit increase.
Source
|
United States41117 Posts
Republicans may seek to tie a debt ceiling increase to legislation that could sabotage Obamacare with higher premiums, House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) told reporters.
"There are issues with Obamacare," Ryan said Thursday at a San Antonio event, as quoted by Politico. "A lot of folks don't realize there could be some massive insurance company bailouts in the near future with Obamacare that a lot of taxpayers probably didn’t know about that we don’t want to see happen. That’s one of the issues that's in the realm of possibility. There are a lot of things ... that are being discussed but its just not in our interest to negotiate in the media."
The "insurance company bailout" is a reference to a burgeoning Republican effort to eliminate a stability mechanism in Obamacare -- known as "risk corridors" -- that is aimed at holding down premiums in the first few years of the law's insurance marketplaces. It is financed by insurers who enroll healthier patients and pays out insurers who enroll sicker patients. But it does not have to be deficit neutral if the overall pool of consumers is sicker than projected (as early estimates suggest is so far the case).
Ryan's comments come on the heels of indications by Speaker John Boehner's
(R-OH) office and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) that Republicans won't agree to raise the debt limit -- the congressionally mandated limit on how much debt the federal government can incur -- without policy add-ons. The House budget chief provided the first indication of what Republicans might conceivably ask for in exchange for a debt limit increase.
Source
|
On January 19 2014 11:09 Danglars wrote:
Bailout it isn't.
snicker...
|
On January 25 2014 04:54 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2014 04:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
What's Europe been up to lately? Putting poor countries in debtor's prison, pussyfooting around a banking crisis for 5+ years and cutting wages for competitiveness. How's that been working? I wasn't trying to bash the US. Europe is having the exact same problems. But as this is the US politics thread I just took the US charts. Europe's don't look much different. And yes we're handing out benefits and all, but we need to multiply our efforts because the net result is still horrible.
It's not easy to fix though. If inequality was the ONE issue everyone cared about, fine - redistribute more, boom, we're done here. But it's not, and public policy decisions have side effects that not everyone likes.
Edit: fwiw I think Noah Smith had a good idea to help the Bay Area's issues. Link
I wouldn't be surprised if the idea gets poo-pooed for one reason or another. Everyone has their own opinion on "what to do".
|
On January 25 2014 04:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2014 03:48 Mercy13 wrote:On January 25 2014 03:25 xDaunt wrote: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. So what exactly are you taking issue with? If you acknowledge the value of good management and if you acknowledge that the CEO is the one who is responsible for good management, then does it not follow that CEOs of large corporations should command huge compensation packages?
I take issue with the view that it is easy to distinguish between good CEOs and bad CEOs during their tenure, and as a result I am skeptical that CEO ability is the primary driver of CEO compensation. Instead, I believe that compensation is set at least somewhat arbitrarily.
However I haven't been able to find evidence either way besides my educated opinion, so take it for what it's worth.
|
On January 25 2014 05:30 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2014 04:31 xDaunt wrote:On January 25 2014 03:48 Mercy13 wrote:On January 25 2014 03:25 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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. So what exactly are you taking issue with? If you acknowledge the value of good management and if you acknowledge that the CEO is the one who is responsible for good management, then does it not follow that CEOs of large corporations should command huge compensation packages? I take issue with the view that it is easy to distinguish between good CEOs and bad CEOs during their tenure, and as a result I am skeptical that CEO ability is the primary driver of CEO compensation. Instead, I believe that compensation is set at least somewhat arbitrarily. However I haven't been able to find evidence either way besides my educated opinion, so take it for what it's worth.
A less well known aspect of compensation is that CEOs and managers in general are much more risk averse than well-diversified shareholders would like, compensation is partly set up to incentivise CEOs to take more risk. While shareholders will lose only a small portion of their wealth when a company goes bust, a CEO will lose his income, the shares in the company that are a large portion of his wealth and his reputation. Because of this, shareholders are willing to pay alot for managers that are known to be willing to take risks, and are willing to heavily reward good performance and unwilling to punish bad performance too much because they don't want to introduce more reasons for CEOs to avoid risks.
|
United States41117 Posts
The Obama administration will make its final decision on the Keystone XL pipeline by early summer, the Wall Street Journal reports.
The proposed pipeline, which would run from the Canadian oil sands to refineries in Texas, has been under consideration for years, but a final decision on it has been delayed several times due to requests for additional evaluations of the project's environmental impact.
The State Department's inspector general is looking into allegations that there was a conflict of interest with the company that prepared the project's latest draft environmental analysis. That report is expected to be released by the end of January. The State Department has the authority to approve the project because it crosses an international border.
The Journal reports that sources familiar with the decision said that the final environmental impact analysis is expected to be released next month. After that, the State Department will make a decision about whether the pipeline is in the national interest, and other agencies will have 90 days to comment on the verdict. That would put President Barack Obama in a position to make a final decision by May or June.
Source
|
Man I just don't understand why everybody gangs up on executives.
If a guy agrees to run a million dollar company for 1% of the profits and he turns it into a billion dollar company why hate on him when he's making 10 million dollars a year?
If a guy agrees to go to work for the company and he gets to buy a million shares next year at today's price if he does well why do you all of a sudden hate him for making a hundred million dollars?
The most important part of being a CEO who is worth it are, passion for the business and how to properly allocate capital. The guys who have been doing it for decades and have a long track record of treating shareholders well. There are not too many of those people in the world but they are worth every penny you invest in them.
|
On January 25 2014 07:58 Wolfstan wrote:
Man I just don't understand why everybody gangs up on executives.
If a guy agrees to run a million dollar company for 1% of the profits and he turns it into a billion dollar company why hate on him when he's making 10 million dollars a year?
If a guy agrees to go to work for the company and he gets to buy a million shares next year at today's price if he does well why do you all of a sudden hate him for making a hundred million dollars?
The most important part of being a CEO who is worth it are, passion for the business and how to properly allocate capital. The guys who have been doing it for decades and have a long track record of treating shareholders well. There are not too many of those people in the world but they are worth every penny you invest in them.
What people hate is CEO's making hundreds of millions of dollars while telling the lower workers they need to take salary cuts or strait up not paying them enough to make a living (as is the case with wall-mart where this all started from).
|
So is the more fair decision to give cashiers of walmart 1% of the profits their tills bring in?
|
On January 25 2014 08:19 Wolfstan wrote:
So is the more fair decision to give cashiers of walmart 1% of the profits their tills bring in?
But how is the cashier personally responsible for the profit their till brings in, compared to how a CEO is responsible for the profit the company brings in? The CEO makes all the important business decisions about how the company will function, while the cashier sits there and deals with the people who only come to him because of the company being established and brought to where its at, by the CEO and other management.
|
On January 25 2014 08:31 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2014 08:19 Wolfstan wrote:
So is the more fair decision to give cashiers of walmart 1% of the profits their tills bring in? But how is the cashier personally responsible for the profit their till brings in, compared to how a CEO is responsible for the profit the company brings in? The CEO makes all the important business decisions about how the company will function, while the cashier sits there and deals with the people who only come to him because of the company being established and brought to where its at, by the CEO and other management.
Do you know how much money the CEO brings in?
|
On January 25 2014 08:32 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2014 08:31 hunts wrote:On January 25 2014 08:19 Wolfstan wrote:
So is the more fair decision to give cashiers of walmart 1% of the profits their tills bring in? But how is the cashier personally responsible for the profit their till brings in, compared to how a CEO is responsible for the profit the company brings in? The CEO makes all the important business decisions about how the company will function, while the cashier sits there and deals with the people who only come to him because of the company being established and brought to where its at, by the CEO and other management. Do you know how much money the CEO brings in?
The CEO being the one who makes most if not all of the major decisions for the business, does a lot more to directly bring in money than someone who simply stands at a cash register, would you not agree? This is a gaming forum, think about what would happen if companies you like such as blizzard or whatever else you might be into replaced their CEO's with random guys off the street. And then the guy off the street who was applying for cashier but was given CEO job went "you know, i hated paying for WoW, let's make the subscription free" or "you know, i bet we would make a lot of money if we started charging SC2 players for maps." And then said company would lose tons of profit. CEO's have to know their particular industry inside and out, and have to be constantly keep up with the times. Each decision they make has the chance to make or cost the company more money than the cashier would ever make in his/her lifetime, and a bad decision from a CEO can cost the company its existence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
