Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 72
  1. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nokomis View Post
    I tend to agree and don't usually get worked up about CEO compensation. Except when it's "subsidized". Take the financial sector for example. Banks were bailed out by taxpayers during the financial crisis. You'd think CEO pay would decrease due to poor performance and redundancies. But bank CEOs are still making the same proportionally. There was no market correction for overpaid bank CEOs. So in that sense, I do think are overpaid.
    100% agree. I wish people would focus more on the actual injustice.


  2. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GopherJake View Post
    False assertion. At a given point in time, the pie is fixed. This is one of your recurring logic fails - misusing the unfixed pie analogy. If the CEO makes $100K less per pay period and employees make $100K more collectively per pay period, all other things being equal, the corporation is in the exact same financial condition. And the CEO is just one person. It's not a stretch to assume a rebalance of wages between management and employees could be done with no change in financial condition.

    But the MD is all wrong here and the whole thing should be voluntary. I don't know why boards approve such high pay for upper management - they must think it's worth it. I'd say the attack should come from there.
    0723 is looking at the economy in aggregate, not an individual company.

  3. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Section2 View Post
    0723 is looking at the economy in aggregate, not an individual company.
    Doesn't matter. My point still stands. One company, all the companies. Makes no difference.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Village Green
    Posts
    3,952

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GopherJake View Post
    I don't know why boards approve such high pay for upper management - they must think it's worth it. I'd say the attack should come from there.
    IIRC, average CEO job span for Fortune 500 is less than five years. High demand with little job security. Kind of like football coaches. I assume that's a big reason for the large salaries.
    Jaws was never my scene, and I don't like Star Wars.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Village Green
    Posts
    3,952

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Section2 View Post
    100% agree. I wish people would focus more on the actual injustice.
    I can't believe I'm agreeing with S2 and disagreeing with Jake on this thread.
    Jaws was never my scene, and I don't like Star Wars.

  6. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nokomis View Post
    I can't believe I'm agreeing with S2 and disagreeing with Jake on this thread.
    But I haven't even given my opinion. I have merely pointed out the fallacy of the argument S2 made. Generally speaking, I think the CEO pay thing is overblown. I agree with you on why. I'm just saying that's where you attack - in the board room, not with laws. Yes, of course, there are occasional ridiculous cases - not unlike sports. But for every bust, there's a Steve Jobs or even just some non-public figure someone who really does make a difference leading a company. That difference can mean job/no job for low level employee guy. But let's not be deluded. CEOs of Fortune 500 companies aren't generally entrepreneurs who started in a garage. So let's put that one to bed.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    2,864
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GopherJake View Post
    False assertion. At a given point in time, the pie is fixed. This is one of your recurring logic fails - misusing the unfixed pie analogy. If the CEO makes $100K less per pay period and employees make $100K more collectively per pay period, all other things being equal, the corporation is in the exact same financial condition. And the CEO is just one person. It's not a stretch to assume a rebalance of wages between management and employees could be done with no change in financial condition.

    But the MD is all wrong here and the whole thing should be voluntary. I don't know why boards approve such high pay for upper management - they must think it's worth it. I'd say the attack should come from there.
    CEOs control the boards and set their own pay.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    35,104
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JimmyJamesMD View Post


    Howey is one of the only GHers that only uses facts.
    Sad but true.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    2,864
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Less executive pay, less buybacks, less dividends, less borrowing for buybacks and dividends, more pay for workers.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    35,104
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KillerGopherFan View Post
    It is most certainly a part of corporation goodwill.

    https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/goodwill.asp

    ...The value of a company’s brand name, solid customer base, good customer relations, good employee relations, and any patents or proprietary technology represent some examples of goodwill...
    The value of goodwill is calculated almost entirely on the first two things.

  11. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JimmyJamesMD View Post
    As soon as you get the protections of a c-corp, where the risk goes from the individual to the corporation, there should be limits on pay.
    This is as futile as it is correct.

    You might as well be a peasant back in feudal England, walking up to your local landlord and decrying “it’s not fair that I have to work the land while you sit on your fat arse doing nothing, just because you were born into the position!” You’d get a hearty laugh and then thrown in a dungeon or your head off.


    Bottom line for humanity, that really has never changed: unfairness and equality just don’t matter to people in power. When you are the one benefitting from the unfairness and inequality, you’ll use your unfair power to fight for and protect it.

  12. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GopherJake View Post
    Doesn't matter. My point still stands. One company, all the companies. Makes no difference.
    It does matter. If you think you don't have enough money, work harder, find a way to provide more value to your employer or your customers. If everyone does this, the pie grows. Redistribution is a failed strategy and a victim mentality.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    35,104
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gopherguy0723 View Post

    I didn't even mention the skyrocketing pay of other C-Suite and top line managers. This is why we need capital gains to equal the income tax rate and why we need a high marginal rate.
    This.

  14. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TruthSeeker View Post
    Less executive pay, less buybacks, less dividends, less borrowing for buybacks and dividends, more pay for workers.
    You can't magically increase the value of employees. The market is the market. "make less money!' isn't a compelling strategy for a for profit business.

  15. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Section2 View Post
    It does matter. If you think you don't have enough money, work harder, find a way to provide more value to your employer or your customers. If everyone does this, the pie grows. Redistribution is a failed strategy and a victim mentality.
    Logic fail. Completely missed the point and moved the goalposts. Never said anything about forced redistribution.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •