The real class warfare and who's losing

[HomerJS]

I never said or implied that you did.

Look, I'm just an average guy. I don't make that much money. I would be much better off if all the CEO pay went to me or to the states which would administer it back to the population as free money. However, it's not my decision to tell a company how much it should compensate the CEO. Neither me, you, the government or the "deprived 99%" a side to the CEO compensation, if the shareholders wish to compensate him in such way.

Ok I guess I was way off base with that!

The fascinating part of you argument is capitalism rewards those who add value. A CEO bankrupts his company keeps his job and big paycheck. That bankrupting causes an economic meltdoen where a average guy working hard for many years loses his job and you will defend this.

 

[SamurAchzar]

The fascinating part of you argument is capitalism rewards those who add value. A CEO bankrupts his company keeps his job and big paycheck. That bankrupting causes an economic meltdoen where a average guy working hard for many years loses his job and you will defend this.

I will ONLY defend the right of the shareholders to determine the identity and compensation of their CEO without ANY external intervention.

 

[HomerJS]

I will ONLY defend the right of the shareholders to determine the identity and compensation of their CEO without ANY external intervention.

Well since these CEOs are doing very well compared to the rest of the country and they won't loose their cush gigs even when they don't add value, I guess it wouldn't hurt to tax them more.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Well since these CEOs are doing very well compared to the rest of the country and they won't loose their cush gigs even when they don't add value, I guess it wouldn't hurt to tax them more.

Of course it wouldn't hurt you. You are the majority and can take as much of their income as you please, essentially at a gunpoint. There's not much they can do about it.

 

[soundforbjt]

What makes an american CEO worth 300+ more salary than any other country listed on the previous chart?

 

[SamurAchzar]

What makes an american CEO worth 300+ more salary than any other country listed on the previous chart?

The fact his shareholders will approve him as much.

 

[Phokus]

The fact his shareholders will approve him as much.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAA. You have no idea how publicly traded companies work.

 

[SamurAchzar]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAA. You have no idea how publicly traded companies work.

Enlighten me.

 

[Jhhnn]

Obviously, but that's not for us to even debate for as long as we're not shareholders in those companies. If two private parties strike an agreement, it's nobodies business.

What I am for, however, is that the public made aware of their rights in these companies, which they might be shareholders of through their retirement funds or whatever. The only rules that should be here are to protect the shareholders (ALL shareholders). And if, fully aware, they choose to compensate the CEO for 475x of the average worker salary - so be it. Their money.

In a democracy, the citizens have the right to determine the structure & responsibilities of corporate entities, regardless of any notions of ownership. Corporations are not people, but rather a societal construct, and therefore w/o any sort of natural rights whatsoever. We allow corporations on the basis that they appear to serve the greater good, and no other.

Corporate structure & responsibility are defined differently in different parts of the world, some of them acknowledging and demanding responsibility beyond what you define, and those corporations are highly competitive with our own. Union and civic leaders sit on the BoD's of German corporations, for example, and German execs acknowledge that power & responsibility are inseparable, unlike our own.

 

[sandorski]

That saying has more to do with the decision making process of both groups rather then their actual state of being. A person could easily go from "poor" to "rich" (in retrospect to their current poor state) due to them moving away from making horrible decisions in life and them seeking out wiser decisions making process.

BS

 

[Phokus]

Enlighten me.

First read this article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...-pay-soaring/2011/09/22/gIQAgq8NJL_print.html

2nd: Learning about 'interlocking directorates' and the 'principal/agent problem'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlocking_directorate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal_agent_problem

When i worked for IBM years ago, the CEO, Sam Palmisano, was also the director of the BoD. He also sat on Exxon's board. On IBM's board, an ex-exxon exec sat on the board back then. This is probably the more egregious version of the interlock, usually it's more subtle.

But to say shareholders 'approve' of CEO pay is laughable. I Probably 'own' thousands of companies via my 401k and IRA and i don't approve of shit. The overwhelming majority of stock is held by institutional investors.

 

[novasatori]

Enlighten me.

You can start in this thread on our very own forums started by Phokus: Sky-high CEO pay is tied to what peers get, not how company does

CEO pay isn't dictated by shareholders.

 

[SamurAchzar]

But to say shareholders 'approve' of CEO pay is laughable. I Probably 'own' thousands of companies via my 401k and IRA and i don't approve of shit. The overwhelming majority of stock is held by institutional investors.

Why don't you withdraw your money from these institutions or sue them for gross negligence in the management of your money?

CEO pay isn't dictated by shareholders

Shareholders appoint boards. Boards appoint, and reward CEOs. If the shareholders don't rally up to do something about the CEO payment, then it might be that they are content with the situation. Whatever the reason is, it is their right and their duty to intervene, not the government's.

 

[Phokus]

Why don't you withdraw your money from these institutions or sue them for gross negligence in the management of your money?

Because there is no choice? That's how the system is rigged. No institution wants to rock the boat.

Shareholders appoint boards. Boards appoint, and reward CEOs. If the shareholders don't rally up to do something about the CEO payment, then it might be that they are content with the situation. Whatever the reason is, it is their right and their duty to intervene, not the government's.

Once boards are chosen, it's very difficult to kick them out. And CEO's have a lot of influence over who gets chosen. Not only that but even if they start out independent, CEO's can gain favor of the boards because they SEE them all the time. I have never met any of the board members that sit on the boards of my companies. This is the principal/agent problem.

And you're missing the ultimate point: Board members form an interlocking network between most publicly traded companies and there is little incentive for them to rock the boat by bringing CEO pay in line and aligning incentives towards shareholders more. You buy into the illusion of choice.

 

[HomerJS]

Of course it wouldn't hurt you. You are the majority and can take as much of their income as you please, essentially at a gunpoint. There's not much they can do about it.

Not true because it would already be happening. Overwelming majority of people (even GOP rank and file) are in favor of raising the top rates but politicians are resisting. It's not the number of people it's the amount of money passed around by lobbyists.

My only contention since the top 1% share of earnings is so skewed they have more of a responsibility for the support of the country. I mean as a percentage of their income. Despite rumors any billionare didn't make his billions alone.

 

[piasabird]

The chart means nothing. It does not communicate anything intelligent.

All it says is you hate rich people!.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Not true because it would already be happening. Overwelming majority of people (even GOP rank and file) are in favor of raising the top rates but politicians are resisting. It's not the number of people it's the amount of money passed around by lobbyists.

You have the votes, the guns and the rioters, while they have their money and lobbyists. It's their only way to defend against you taking their assets.

My only contention since the top 1% share of earnings is so skewed they have more of a responsibility for the support of the country. I mean as a percentage of their income. Despite rumors any billionare didn't make his billions alone.

They are 1% of the population but account for like 22% of the tax base, IIRC. Honestly, how much more do you expect them to contribute in order to feed and support the rest of the population?
You seem very strongly opinionated about this so I guess you have a number in mind. When will it stop - when they are 30% of the tax base? 40%? Maybe 80%?

 

[SamurAchzar]

Because there is no choice? That's how the system is rigged. No institution wants to rock the boat.

Once boards are chosen, it's very difficult to kick them out. And CEO's have a lot of influence over who gets chosen. Not only that but even if they start out independent, CEO's can gain favor of the boards because they SEE them all the time. I have never met any of the board members that sit on the boards of my companies. This is the principal/agent problem.

And you're missing the ultimate point: Board members form an interlocking network between most publicly traded companies and there is little incentive for them to rock the boat by bringing CEO pay in line and aligning incentives towards shareholders more. You buy into the illusion of choice.

I don't disagree with anything you wrote here. There surely is a problem with some CEOs at some companies, but it's not the government job to be the arbitrator. If you are misrepresented by investment institutes, organize a class action against them. Rally the other shareholders to have a meeting. There ARE solutions to this, outside of legalization.

Anyway, the real problem for the shareholders is not the CEO compensation but the CEO performance, or at least that's what the rioters and liberals sell us. Not outright CEO payment but lack of correlation between payment and performance. Fine; how would limiting the payment solve the problem of interlocking boards and CEO appointments based on personal favor? It won't.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

BS

The only bullshit is the cathartic response from all the people who believe that personal decisions in ones own life doesn't matter versus how much wealth someone else is attaining/losing due to their own distinct set of alternate decisions.

 

[bradley]

Vote with your dollars before they are completely worthless.

 

[SamurAchzar]

This is the income segmentation in actual numbers:

It surely looks much better than the negative trends of the OP graphs. It is only logical that with more markets, more opportunities and easier access to tech, some people will benefit more than others.

 

[Jhhnn]

This is the income segmentation in actual numbers:

It surely looks much better than the negative trends of the OP graphs. It is only logical that with more markets, more opportunities and easier access to tech, some people will benefit more than others.

Nice try at obfuscation. The truly wealthy have the ability to hide in the top 1%, let alone the top 5%. Anybody trying to enable that would offer your graph, obviously.

Here's another spiffy graph you might try to pooh-pooh-

http://www.frumforum.com/incredible-shrinking-workers-income

 

[rchiu]

First read this article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...-pay-soaring/2011/09/22/gIQAgq8NJL_print.html

2nd: Learning about 'interlocking directorates' and the 'principal/agent problem'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlocking_directorate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal_agent_problem

When i worked for IBM years ago, the CEO, Sam Palmisano, was also the director of the BoD. He also sat on Exxon's board. On IBM's board, an ex-exxon exec sat on the board back then. This is probably the more egregious version of the interlock, usually it's more subtle.

But to say shareholders 'approve' of CEO pay is laughable. I Probably 'own' thousands of companies via my 401k and IRA and i don't approve of shit. The overwhelming majority of stock is held by institutional investors.

It's your own fault you own thousands of companies and spread yourself thin. You own an insignificant share in each company, and that's why you don't approve shit. Those institutional investors who owns majority of stock have lots of say through fund managers, and if they don't actively engage in monitoring the board activity, it's their own freaking fault.

If IBM shareholders are happy with Sam Palmisano and make him CEO and a director of the BoD, while he sits on Exxon Board, it's their freaking business. Palmisano disclosed his involvement, it's public record, it's not like he was sneaking behind shareholder's back. IBM is doing well, your so called "interlocking board" didn't change the fact that Palmisano made IBM one of the most successful tech company right now.

 

[SamurAchzar]

It is very reasonable that the labor share reduces with globalization and overseas imports. I don't think that it is, in itself, a problem, and I'm sure that any band aid in the form of taxation of the rich and handing money to the poor will only make the problem worse in the long run. Adapt or die. Sounds cruel, but when this process spans on generations it what leads a nation to prosperity.

 

[Engineer]

It is very reasonable that the labor share reduces with globalization and overseas imports. I don't think that it is, in itself, a problem, and I'm sure that any band aid in the form of taxation of the rich and handing money to the poor will only make the problem worse in the long run. Adapt or die. Sounds cruel, but when this process spans on generations it what leads a nation to prosperity.

The only people that globalization has led prosperity to is those at the top...those very people who are shipping jobs out from all other classes, most notably the lower and lower middle. They should be paid more for a job well done....oh wait...