out sourcing ceo's

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: glenn1
You point out that there's plenty of CEO's out there who couldn't manage their way out of a paper bag, so what? That's not the question here. It's whether that on a total return basis, whether companies feel they get a better deal from American CEOs or someone overseas who would agree to work for a lower wage (but had a less desireable skill set from the POV of those making the hiring decision). The numbers involved basically don't matter, whether the job was for a $5/hour janitor, or $5 million/year CEO, the person is going to hire whoever they think provides a better deal.

I love capitalism. Let's get that out in the open. But there is a problem these days with corporations looting retirement funds, laying off half the employees, driving the company into the ground, declaring bankruptcy, then reorganizing and doing it again after a series of "buyouts" while the whole time the CEO is drawing a massive salary plus options. A lot of this is in fact the good ole boys club and back scratching, with little concern for the corporation or it's long term stockholders. The good ole boys get together and all get on the board at each others companies, giving each other fat compensation packages which aren't tied to performance.

As far as the stockholder is concerned, who cares whether a company is profitable in the long term? It all seems to be short term investing , and all about the takeover nowadays. Who buys stocks for the dividends anymore? I could be wrong, but people seem to buy stock in a company and hope for a takeover and a skyrocketing stock price. We saw this clearly with the tech boom of the 90s, overvalued companies with nothing to back up their stock price, but people just wanted in because it was hip, and there was a chance Microsoft would gobble up the company and make everybody rich. It's not as obvious now, but as far as I'm concerned it's this kind of short term profitability mindset that allows large corporations to get away with some of the things they do. There's no thought to the long term.

Edit: After reading a bit further, I guess I said basically what Future Shock was saying.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: glenn1
You point out that there's plenty of CEO's out there who couldn't manage their way out of a paper bag, so what? That's not the question here. It's whether that on a total return basis, whether companies feel they get a better deal from American CEOs or someone overseas who would agree to work for a lower wage (but had a less desireable skill set from the POV of those making the hiring decision). The numbers involved basically don't matter, whether the job was for a $5/hour janitor, or $5 million/year CEO, the person is going to hire whoever they think provides a better deal.

I love capitalism. Let's get that out in the open. But there is a problem these days with corporations looting retirement funds, laying off half the employees, driving the company into the ground, declaring bankruptcy, then reorganizing and doing it again after a series of "buyouts" while the whole time the CEO is drawing a massive salary plus options. A lot of this is in fact the good ole boys club and back scratching, with little concern for the corporation or it's long term stockholders. The good ole boys get together and all get on the board at each others companies, giving each other fat compensation packages which aren't tied to performance.

As far as the stockholder is concerned, who cares whether a company is profitable in the long term? It all seems to be short term investing , and all about the takeover nowadays. Who buys stocks for the dividends anymore? I could be wrong, but people seem to buy stock in a company and hope for a takeover and a skyrocketing stock price. We saw this clearly with the tech boom of the 90s, overvalued companies with nothing to back up their stock price, but people just wanted in because it was hip, and there was a chance Microsoft would gobble up the company and make everybody rich. It's not as obvious now, but as far as I'm concerned it's this kind of short term profitability mindset that allows large corporations to get away with some of the things they do. There's no thought to the long term.

Edit: After reading a bit further, I guess I said basically what Future Shock was saying.

I think what you are saying may apply somewhat to tech stocks, but for companies that investors are in for the long haul, the stock price is going to be tied to profits.

 

[BoberFett]

So in non-tech companies, say GM or Northwest Airlines, those executives are taking massive paycuts while asking their employees to the same right? Fat chance. The execs plunder what they can, then they're out of there.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
So in non-tech companies, say GM or Northwest Airlines, those executives are taking massive paycuts while asking their employees to the same right? Fat chance. The execs plunder what they can, then they're out of there.

We all 'plunder' what we can from this world before we die, corporate execs not excluded.

But I see what you are saying, even though it is a bit exaggerated. I think that the modern corporation (and even corporations of the past) is a by-product of the state's legal meanderings.

This of course should be eliminated, forcing executives and corporations to be built on much stronger networks of trust. A lot of these cases of corporate abuse are caused by corporations taking the risk in the public court system, with their high priced lawyers able to work the system in their favor.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Stunt
Outsourcing CEOs....wow, debating whether to respond to such crap.

CEOs are very important individuals, they have a huge impact on economic growth and standard of living. These people for the most part are irreplacable, the skills in one of these people is worth many times the jobs actually affected by outsourcing. As for pay, I have no idea what is fair, but I advocate part ownership as they benefit from their vision and practices; a drive to succeed.

Wow, stunt, I have to say, for a minute it sounded like you are an advocate of free markets and individual effort. It is ashamed you still think that everyone must pay homage to the all powerful State. :disgust:

I support free markets, but i do see value in some state programs.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Stunt
Outsourcing CEOs....wow, debating whether to respond to such crap.

CEOs are very important individuals, they have a huge impact on economic growth and standard of living. These people for the most part are irreplacable, the skills in one of these people is worth many times the jobs actually affected by outsourcing. As for pay, I have no idea what is fair, but I advocate part ownership as they benefit from their vision and practices; a drive to succeed.

Wow, stunt, I have to say, for a minute it sounded like you are an advocate of free markets and individual effort. It is ashamed you still think that everyone must pay homage to the all powerful State. :disgust:

I support free markets, but i do see value in some state programs.

Given a progressive income tax what kind of distribution of income do you think the state would prefer in order to maximize income tax revenue? (this is in reference to the salaries of CEOs)