The real class warfare and who's losing

[rchiu]

For those in power. See: The guillotine.



This coming from you? Oh that's rich, you think rising CEO pay is due to natural market forces rather than collusion between executives and the interlocking networks of BoD's.

Heh I said CEO pay is due to market force but I never said the market is perfectly efficient or free of collusion. You of all people with all your proclaimed work experience should know the market is not perfectly efficient and price (including CEO salary) will not 100% reflect supply and demand.

But that's not an excuse to start heavy regulations and your price (again CEO pay) control by groups that are not involved. And American system, in spite of the of the inefficiency, works better than any other system.

 

[Phokus]

Heh I said CEO pay is due to market force but I never said the market is perfectly efficient or free of collusion. You of all people with all your proclaimed work experience should know the market is not perfectly efficient and price (including CEO salary) will not 100% reflect supply and demand.

But that's not an excuse to start heavy regulations and your price (again CEO pay) control by groups that are not involved. And American system, in spite of the of the inefficiency, works better than any other system.

It's not reflective 100%, 99%, 90%, 80%, or even 50%. It's close to pure collusion. You idiot.

In a perfect world where Boards have an arms length relationship with the CEO, CEO's aren't allowed to sit on the board (as my former CEO did, not only as a member but as the CHAIRMAN of the board), board members aren't allowed to sit on multiple boards, and they put shareholder interests #1 over everything else, compensation for CEO's would be ***FAR*** different than what it is today. (edit: and shareholders had a non-binding vote on executive compensation and more shareholders took part in their votes)

The rational for CEO compensation is that the board always wants their CEO's pay to be 'above average', which always means that CEO pay is always going to go up higher and higher, regardless of performance. This will even eventually affect the few companies where boards try to give fair compensation to CEO's because they can't be TOO far off from industry averages.

 

[rchiu]

It's not reflective 100%, 99%, 90%, 80%, or even 50%. It's close to pure collusion. You idiot.

In a perfect world where Boards have an arms length relationship with the CEO, CEO's aren't allowed to sit on the board (as my former CEO did, not only as a member but as the CHAIRMAN of the board), board members aren't allowed to sit on multiple boards, and they put shareholder interests #1 over everything else, compensation for CEO's would be ***FAR*** different than what it is today. (edit: and shareholders had a non-binding vote on executive compensation and more shareholders took part in their votes)

The rational for CEO compensation is that the board always wants their CEO's pay to be 'above average', which always means that CEO pay is always going to go up higher and higher, regardless of performance. This will even eventually affect the few companies where boards try to give fair compensation to CEO's because they can't be TOO far off from industry averages.

So this world is not perfect, and where does US law specify a CEO cannot sit on the board? It's just another "good governance" bs brought up by auditors with not one day of operation experience. In fact a CEO can bring much knowledge to the board so BoD can make better and informed decision. As long as there are check and balances, and the shareholders are aware and agree to the arrangement, who the heck are you to say other wise? IBM and their performance speak for itself and having CEO sit on the board didn't hurt their performance the last 10 years. They have successfully transformed from a hardware vendor to a high value consulting service company, not an easy feat. A feat that HP try to copy but failed miserably.

And CEO hire has huge impact on shareholder confidence. If you want the guy with proven track record, you have to pay. CEO inherently has that negotiation power. Again, who the heck are you to add more regulation and rules to how company hires CEO. If they feel they want to pay 75th percentile of the peer salary to get a guy with the right connection, name recognition and track record, who the heck are you to tell them no, you have to pay average.

 

[Phokus]

So this world is not perfect, and where does US law specify a CEO cannot sit on the board? It's just another "good governance" bs brought up by auditors with not one day of operation experience. In fact a CEO can bring much knowledge to the board so BoD can make better and informed decision. As long as there are check and balances, and the shareholders are aware and agree to the arrangement, who the heck are you to say other wise? IBM and their performance speak for itself and having CEO sit on the board didn't hurt their performance the last 10 years. They have successfully transformed from a hardware vendor to a high value consulting service company, not an easy feat. A feat that HP try to copy but failed miserably.

And CEO hire has huge impact on shareholder confidence. If you want the guy with proven track record, you have to pay. CEO inherently has that negotiation power. Again, who the heck are you to add more regulation and rules to how company hires CEO. If they feel they want to pay 75th percentile of the peer salary to get a guy with the right connection, name recognition and track record, who the heck are you to tell them no, you have to pay average.

Where did i say there was a US law that said CEO's can't sit on the board? Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I said IN A PERFECT WORLD where that can't happen...

In fact a CEO can bring much knowledge to the board so BoD can make better and informed decision. As long as there are check and balances, and the shareholders are aware and agree to the arrangement, who the heck are you to say other wise?

LOL WHAT. It's not like the CEO doesn't interact with the board, are you fucking insane? Do you give blowjobs to your CEO? Jesus, there's being an apologist and then there's whatever garbage you're typing.

There ARE no checks and balances. Hence the outrageous CEO pay that's disconnected from performance.

IBM and their performance speak for itself and having CEO sit on the board didn't hurt their performance the last 10 years. They have successfully transformed from a hardware vendor to a high value consulting service company, not an easy feat. A feat that HP try to copy but failed miserably.

Sure, IBM is doing well, but that doesn't change the fact that the CEO also is still taking more in compensation out of the company than if he were operating in a truly competitive market rather than being in collusion with the decision makers who determine his pay.

Also, LOLOL, wtf are you talking about HP? Last i checked: a) They bought compaq, b) they're still in hardware/pc sales, and c) did you see their recent flop with the hp touchpad? IBM actually SOLD their PC division to a Chinese company. You live in some sort of opposite land.

And CEO hire has huge impact on shareholder confidence. If you want the guy with proven track record, you have to pay. CEO inherently has that negotiation power. Again, who the heck are you to add more regulation and rules to how company hires CEO. If they feel they want to pay 75th percentile of the peer salary to get a guy with the right connection, name recognition and track record, who the heck are you to tell them no, you have to pay average.

Not really. Again, how much do you participate in the companies in your 401k/IRA? I 'own' thousands of companies through my retirement funds. CEO's get recycled even if they fuck up. Their 'negotiating power' comes from the fact that the boards work in collusion and there's an incentive to not rock the boat.

 

[rchiu]

Where did i say there was a US law that said CEO's can't sit on the board? Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I said IN A PERFECT WORLD where that can't happen...

LOL WHAT. It's not like the CEO doesn't interact with the board, are you fucking insane? Do you give blowjobs to your CEO? Jesus, there's being an apologist and then there's whatever garbage you're typing.

There ARE no checks and balances. Hence the outrageous CEO pay that's disconnected from performance.

Sure, IBM is doing well, but that doesn't change the fact that the CEO also is still taking more in compensation out of the company than if he were operating in a truly competitive market rather than being in collusion with the decision makers who determine his pay.

Also, LOLOL, wtf are you talking about HP? Last i checked: a) They bought compaq, b) they're still in hardware/pc sales, and c) did you see their recent flop with the hp touchpad? IBM actually SOLD their PC division to a Chinese company. You live in some sort of opposite land.

Not really. Again, how much do you participate in the companies in your 401k/IRA? I 'own' thousands of companies through my retirement funds. CEO's get recycled even if they fuck up. Their 'negotiating power' comes from the fact that the boards work in collusion and there's an incentive to not rock the boat.

Seriously you need to know more about companies before posting idiot stuff like this.

Why do you think HP hired Leo Apotheker, a guy from SAP with huge consulting service portfolio? And do you know how many India offices HP is building and consultants they are hire? I deal with them on day to day basis.

And yeah, interact on monthly board meeting is the same as having CEO on the board. Oh by the way, CEO is not the only inside director sitting on the board, senior managements and other employees can all be board member. So we now have special rule for CEO?

And who the heck are you to say Palmisano is getting more than he could have in truly competitive market. First you don't have truly competitive market (and that's not a bad thing or unusual in all market), and you don't have any true benchmark, so you are based on something out of your ass that doesn't mean shit.

 

[sportage]

The real class warfare and who's losing

Like Bill Maher said, it isn't class warfare, it's more like club warfare.
The top 1% being the "club".

 

[Phokus]

Seriously you need to know more about companies before posting idiot stuff like this.

Why do you think HP hired Leo Apotheker, a guy from SAP with huge consulting service portfolio? And do you know how many India offices HP is building and consultants they are hire? I deal with them on day to day basis.

And yeah, interact on monthly board meeting is the same as having CEO on the board. Oh by the way, CEO is not the only inside director sitting on the board, senior managements and other employees can all be board member. So we now have special rule for CEO?

And who the heck are you to say Palmisano is getting more than he could have in truly competitive market. First you don't have truly competitive market (and that's not a bad thing or unusual in all market), and you don't have any true benchmark, so you are based on something out of your ass that doesn't mean shit.

You said HP tried to copy IBM's model. No they didn't, they're still heavily into PC sales. IBM sold their PC division to Lenovo YEARS AGO. Maybe they're in the PROCESS of doing it down the line, but they haven't copied shit yet. How do you not get these basic facts right.

LOL, are you batshit retarded? The only idiotic postings are from you. Point to me where i said there was a law that said CEO's aren't allowed to serve on the board. The problem is... THERE IS NONE. Insiders should not be allowed to sit on boards. There's nothing preventing insiders from having meetings with the CEO's on a more constant basis, but they're, in THEORY (obviously not in practice) supposed to have a more arms length relationship with the CEO and they should be representing shareholder interests as their number 1 priority (again, in theory, not in practice).

 

[rchiu]

You said HP tried to copy IBM's model. No they didn't, they're still heavily into PC sales. IBM sold their PC division to Lenovo YEARS AGO. Maybe they're in the PROCESS of doing it down the line, but they haven't copied shit yet. How do you not get these basic facts right.

LOL, are you batshit retarded? The only idiotic postings are from you. Point to me where i said there was a law that said CEO's aren't allowed to serve on the board. The problem is... THERE IS NONE. Insiders should not be allowed to sit on boards. There's nothing preventing insiders from having meetings with the CEO's on a more constant basis, but they're, in THEORY (obviously not in practice) supposed to have a more arms length relationship with the CEO and they should be representing shareholder interests as their number 1 priority (again, in theory, not in practice).

What part of HP hired Leo Apotheker, a guy with absolutely zero hardware/pc experience but 100% software/consulting experience to copy IBM's software/service centric model don't you understand. What part of Leo Apotheker is already in past tense don't you understand. Just because you as a uninformed outsider doesn't know what is going on, it doesn't mean HP didn't do anything.

Yeah I know there isn't a law against CEO serving on the board, that's why I reminded you. You certainly make interlocking directorate or CEO serving on the board sound like it's illegal and it equates corruption.

You know, you "good governance" people can't make up your mind. You want the BoD to keep distance, and at the same time you want them to make the right decision. Shit that's exactly why I point out you all got this theory and how it should work but not one day of operation experience to see that it doesn't work in the real world.

 

[Jhhnn]

The prohibition about interlocking directorates is quite narrow. A person could sit on the boards of Boeing, GE, GM, Viacom, ConAgra, Apple & JPMC all at the same time, while being a CEO elsewhere, because those businesses are not direct competitors. It's quite common for multiple directors to sit on multiple boards- keeps things cozy. Modern good old boy systems are really much more sophisticated than outsiders even suspect. Modern business combines, with shared goals & complimentary attributes & abilities are de rigeur in today's world, even if we don't realize they're there.

 

[Brigandier]

Class warfare in America makes everyone lose.

If America, as an idea, wants to succeed the people need to band together and reject the evil, encroaching ideas. The immigrants need an American ideal to die for, the citizens need to appreciate what they have been given, and everyone needs to remember the American dream.

Class warfare obfuscates human endeavors, makes the people fight each other and not the looming evil. What is the looming evil? I know what it is to me, but cannot presume it's the same for you, but my evil and your evil probably have a lot in common. Instead of the majority fighting evil, I think the majority should perpetuate good. Leave the wedge issues on the wayside; focus on the issues people agree on.

That's all craziness though.

 

[MagickMan]

Who's talking about some one-time redistribution of wealth? The current system gives too much power to the wealthy, and they get too much wealth. We need to fix that.

and once the wealthy move to Bermuda, or some other tax haven, and change citizenship, what will you do then? It happened in France, the top 1% hopped over to Switzerland.

 

[MagickMan]

Like Bill Maher said, it isn't class warfare, it's more like club warfare.
The top 1% being the "club".

He would know, since he's in that club.

 

[Craig234]

and once the wealthy move to Bermuda, or some other tax haven, and change citizenship, what will you do then? It happened in France, the top 1% hopped over to Switzerland.

You're right - we should give the wealthy everything they might possibly want so they don't leave. No taxes, no laws, the right to have sex with anyone they see on the street.

When you start catering to the ultra wealthy the way you suggest (not the way I exaggerated), you cause big problems.

The wealthy must be protected, and screw everyone else who won't leave, so give special treatment to the rich.

The next thing is as a result, they're owning a huge amount of society, holding a huge amount of power, threatening your democracy and the public interest. For what?

The answer is not to do what you say and destroy society.

The US is a highly desirable place and we're not going to lose that many rich. Ideally we'll work with other governments to stick together.

Rich people have been coming to the US as a tax *haven* - since before the system radically shifted even more in their favor since Reagan. It's not a problem.

 

[MagickMan]

You're right - we should give the wealthy everything they might possibly want so they don't leave. No taxes, no laws, the right to have sex with anyone they see on the street.

I just wonder how you'll feel if/when they leave and take what taxes they do pay with them. You push them and it will happen, and no amount of hyperbole from you regarding laws and sex (wtf?) will matter.

I can say that I believe that they'd accept the Clinton era tax levels, but you push it further than that and there will be people leaving, en masse. Then you'll have a really tough time explaining to the middle class that they need to pay 25% more to cover it.

Hell, if i were in that situation, and you started to put the screws to me to get some "progressive" tax rate, I'd tell you to fuck yourself and I'd be renouncing my citizenship as soon as my plane landed in Barbados.

 

[theeedude]

I just wonder how you'll feel if/when they leave and take what taxes they do pay with them. You push them and it will happen, and no amount of hyperbole from you regarding laws and sex (wtf?) will matter.

I can say that I believe that they'd accept the Clinton era tax levels, but you push it further than that and there will be people leaving, en masse. Then you'll have a really tough time explaining to the middle class that they need to pay 25% more to cover it.

Hell, if i were in that situation, and you started to put the screws to me to get some "progressive" tax rate, I'd tell you to fuck yourself and I'd be renouncing my citizenship as soon as my plane landed in Barbados.

Good riddance to fair weather "Americans" like yourself if that happens. America did just fine without your ilk in the 50s and 60s with much higher tax rates than under Clinton.

 

[MagickMan]

Good riddance to fair weather "Americans" like yourself if that happens.

Damned right. I wouldn't see any reason to stick around, just so I can be used to prop up even more social programs that I have no interest in. "Fair weather Americans", reminds me of the Liberals who were screaming that they'd leave if G.W. Bush was reelected. Of course, they didn't leave, but you have to admit it was still very funny.

Personally, I'm not a 1 percenter, I think those people should pay their fair share of cap gains taxes and it should be counted as regular income. However, you get greedy and you'll kill the goose instead of getting a few more extra eggs.

 

[Craig234]

I just wonder how you'll feel if/when they leave and take what taxes they do pay with them. You push them and it will happen, and no amount of hyperbole from you regarding laws and sex (wtf?) will matter.

I can say that I believe that they'd accept the Clinton era tax levels, but you push it further than that and there will be people leaving, en masse. Then you'll have a really tough time explaining to the middle class that they need to pay 25% more to cover it.

Hell, if i were in that situation, and you started to put the screws to me to get some "progressive" tax rate, I'd tell you to fuck yourself and I'd be renouncing my citizenship as soon as my plane landed in Barbados.

Did they all leave in the 1940's? 1950's? 1960's?

Why not?

 

[MagickMan]

Did they all leave in the 1940's? 1950's? 1960's?

Why not?

Actually, many did, they did a lot of business in the USA while living in Central America and the Caribbean.

 

[SamurAchzar]

The wealthy must be protected, and screw everyone else who won't leave, so give special treatment to the rich.

YOU are the one advocating special treatment to the rich. No one else ever said it. YOU want to target them for additional tax collection and YOU want to redistribute their wealth just because they are, well, wealthy.

The US is a highly desirable place and we're not going to lose that many rich. Ideally we'll work with other governments to stick together.

What, conspire against rich everywhere to screw them over and leave them no escape route?

Fair enough, Craig, why don't you tell what's your end game here. What changes are you proposing? What the end result would be like?

 

[Jhhnn]

YOU are the one advocating special treatment to the rich. No one else ever said it. YOU want to target them for additional tax collection and YOU want to redistribute their wealth just because they are, well, wealthy.



What, conspire against rich everywhere to screw them over and leave them no escape route?

Fair enough, Craig, why don't you tell what's your end game here. What changes are you proposing? What the end result would be like?

We have a system that has redistributed wealth and income to the top for the last 30 years, radically changing the income demographics of this country. In 1980, the top 1&#37; had <9% of taxable national income and paid 33% average in federal taxes. They were nonetheless rich by everybody else's standards. Today, Their share of national income is >20% and their average tax rate is ~22%, with the highest earning 400 paying <17%. But today, they're trying to shift the tax burden even further downscale with deceptive and simplistic tax proposals of all kinds, schemes where they would pay even less. They've even gone so far as to hold the unemployment compensation of millions of unemployed Americans hostage to keeping their most recently acquired tax breaks.

As a % of GDP, Federal revenues are at their lowest point of the post-WW2 era, which means revenues can and must be raised. There's obviously a sector of the population who can easily afford to pay more, where tax increases will achieve the greatest yield, and that's at the top.

"Conspire against the Rich?" You make fair & open discussion of tax law in a democracy sound like calls for the dictatorship of the proletariat, when no such thing is happening.

 

[Nemesis 1]

When you guys get done beating each others heads in . Food for thought . When I entered the job market . At min wage I got 75cents an hour. That was in the late 60's.

Whats the min now . The bottom feeders were treated to a 10X increase in wages . Let me tell ya . If I had to work at min today . I would be in far worse shape today than I was back when . Who had power durring this period of time? How blind can you people be . The only blue collar workers who injoy the fruits of inflation are the State local and federal union workers . The rest of us when we go on strike in the private sector The national guard is called out to intimadate the non government union workers. I don't understand you guys unless this FACT right here be true and I totally agree its true . You younger people are a bunch of morons as the proof is in the pudding .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw

Were did I say that. I said government employee unions don't have the national guard disrupting their activities . and they recieve an automatic cost of kiving rase yearly . The private sector doesn't. I have been shop steward. I can't not stand working next to a slacker who foes 50&#37; less work. Than the union telling me I am not entitled to a higher wage because were all brothers and sisters . BS. The ubions protect unproductive workers . The work place in the last 40 years has changed dramaticly.Productivity is a joke when the human element is considered . You didn't watch the video or you don't care our grad. are morons. All thanks to Unions will not all but its a big part . How many here haven't paid back their higher education loans . I bedt all of you have . But the % that don't would say some are less than honest.

 

[theeedude]

When you guys get done beating each others heads in . Food for thought . When I entered the job market . At min wage I got 75cents an hour. That was in the late 60's.

Whats the min now . The bottom feeders were treated to a 10X increase in wages . Let me tell ya . If I had to work at min today . I would be in far worse shape today than I was back when . Who had power durring this period of time? How blind can you people be . The only blue collar workers who injoy the fruits of inflation are the State local and federal union workers . The rest of us when we go on strike in the private sector The national guard is called out to intimadate the non government union workers. I don't understand you guys unless this FACT right here be true and I totally agree its true . You younger people are a bunch of morons as the proof is in the pudding .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw

If you think the unions are responsible for lower wages, then frankly you calling anyone else a moron is quite hilarious .

 

[blackangst1]

Do you think the government should build roads? Roads don't increase personal liberty, but they clearly increase the general welfare.

Absolutely.

 

[blackangst1]

A few things might help bring CEO to average worker pay in line.


Truth in advertising. If CEO to average worker compensation was easily accessible...

I need to buy a camera and I narrow it down to 3. I might tend to gravitate towards the company that treated there average workers better. 150 to 1 vs 500 to 1. Mandate that info be easily accessible.


CEO pay must be approved by shareholders. End the cronyism of pay approved by board members that sit on multiple boards and scratch each others back.

For public companies it is easily accessible.

 

[Nemesis 1]

If you think the unions are responsible for lower wages, then frankly you calling anyone else a moron is quite hilarious .

Were did I say that. I said government employee unions don't have the national guard disrupting their activities . and they recieve an automatic cost of living raise yearly . The private sector doesn't. I have been shop steward. I can't not stand working next to a slacker who does 50&#37; less work. Than the union telling me I am not entitled to a higher wage because were all brothers and sisters . BS. The unions protect unproductive workers . The work place in the last 40 years has changed dramaticly.Productivity is a joke when the human element is considered . You didn't watch the video or you don't care our grad. are morons. All thanks to Unions well not all but its a big part . How many here haven't paid back their higher education loans . I bet all of you have . But the % that don't would say some are less than honest.