Forums: Community: The Soap Box:
Redistribute the Wealth - CEO's make too much money
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for The Soap Box

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All


ENARE


Dec 16, 2011, 10:12 AM
Post #1 of 28 (2231 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 8, 2011
Posts: 275

Redistribute the Wealth - CEO's make too much money
Report this Post
Can't Post

Is this a true statement? A little math for you:

Total compensation for all Fortune 500 CEO's / Total number of employees employed by fortune 500 Companies = X (Money that could be redistributed to the lesser earning employees of Fortune 500 companies)

What do you think the number is?

I will give you a guess, it is less than $300.

5,400,000,000/24,746,142 = $218

Data based on 2006 numbers.


(This post was edited by ENARE on Dec 16, 2011, 3:20 PM)


traddad


Dec 16, 2011, 10:18 AM
Post #2 of 28 (2228 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 14, 2001
Posts: 7129

Re: [ENARE] Redistribute the Wealth - CEO's make too much money [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

ENARE wrote:
Is this a true statement? A little math for you:

Total compensation for all Fortune 500 CEO's / Total number of employees employed by fortune 500 Companies = X

What do you think the number is?

I will give you a guess, it is less than $300.

5,400,000,000/24,746,142 = X

Data based on 2006 numbers.

Citation link?


ENARE


Dec 16, 2011, 10:42 AM
Post #3 of 28 (2224 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 8, 2011
Posts: 275

Re: [traddad] Redistribute the Wealth - CEO's make too much money [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

http://www.forbes.com/...z_sw_0420ceopay.html

http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/...ivate-employers.html


lena_chita
Moderator

Dec 16, 2011, 11:36 AM
Post #4 of 28 (2211 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 5472

Re: [ENARE] Redistribute the Wealth - CEO's make too much money [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

ENARE wrote:
Is this a true statement? A little math for you:

Total compensation for all Fortune 500 CEO's / Total number of employees employed by fortune 500 Companies = X

What do you think the number is?

I will give you a guess, it is less than $300.

5,400,000,000/24,746,142 = X

Data based on 2006 numbers.


So much depends on how you spin the numbers:

Statement 1, based on your numbers above:

You could confiscate every single penny from the fortune 500 CEOs, divide it among all the employees of Fortune 500 companies, and they would get a 'bonus' check of only $218.

Statement 2, also based on your numbers above, and median household income for 2005 being $48,201 from this http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104688.html:

The CEOs of fortune 500 companies in 2006 made enough money to keep 112,030 FAMILIES living for a year at median household income.

Discuss.



Oh, and it is also 'slightly' misleading to take 500 CEOs, but not count various "vice-presidents" who probably make only slightly less than the top guy, and lump the VPs with Wallmart store clerks.


ENARE


Dec 16, 2011, 12:40 PM
Post #5 of 28 (2200 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 8, 2011
Posts: 275

Re: [lena_chita] Redistribute the Wealth - CEO's make too much money [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

lena_chita wrote:
ENARE wrote:
Is this a true statement? A little math for you:

Total compensation for all Fortune 500 CEO's / Total number of employees employed by fortune 500 Companies = X

What do you think the number is?

I will give you a guess, it is less than $300.

5,400,000,000/24,746,142 = X

Data based on 2006 numbers.


So much depends on how you spin the numbers:

Statement 1, based on your numbers above:

You could confiscate every single penny from the fortune 500 CEOs, divide it among all the employees of Fortune 500 companies, and they would get a 'bonus' check of only $218.

Statement 2, also based on your numbers above, and median household income for 2005 being $48,201 from this http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104688.html:

The CEOs of fortune 500 companies in 2006 made enough money to keep 112,030 FAMILIES living for a year at median household income.

Discuss.



Oh, and it is also 'slightly' misleading to take 500 CEOs, but not count various "vice-presidents" who probably make only slightly less than the top guy, and lump the VPs with Wallmart store clerks.

I think that your statement two may be a bit misleading. Due to the fact that these CEO's are already employing well over the 112,030 families you mention.

In addition to this, the Billions made by these CEO's are not hoarded, rather, they are reinvested into the economy in the form of purchasing stocks and bonds as well as consumer good which will inevitably employ quite a number more people in different industries.

Numbers that cannot be calculated accurately and are missing from the political discussion.

I do agree with your statement regarding the various VP's and other executives not taken into account.


lena_chita
Moderator

Dec 16, 2011, 1:00 PM
Post #6 of 28 (2194 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 5472

Re: [ENARE] Redistribute the Wealth - CEO's make too much money [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

ENARE wrote:
lena_chita wrote:
ENARE wrote:
Is this a true statement? A little math for you:

Total compensation for all Fortune 500 CEO's / Total number of employees employed by fortune 500 Companies = X

What do you think the number is?

I will give you a guess, it is less than $300.

5,400,000,000/24,746,142 = X

Data based on 2006 numbers.


So much depends on how you spin the numbers:

Statement 1, based on your numbers above:

You could confiscate every single penny from the fortune 500 CEOs, divide it among all the employees of Fortune 500 companies, and they would get a 'bonus' check of only $218.

Statement 2, also based on your numbers above, and median household income for 2005 being $48,201 from this http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104688.html:

The CEOs of fortune 500 companies in 2006 made enough money to keep 112,030 FAMILIES living for a year at median household income.

Discuss.



Oh, and it is also 'slightly' misleading to take 500 CEOs, but not count various "vice-presidents" who probably make only slightly less than the top guy, and lump the VPs with Wallmart store clerks.

I think that your statement two may be a bit misleading. Due to the fact that these CEO's are already employing well over the 112,030 families you mention.

It is not meant to represent those people who are employed by fortune 500, but rather, how many "average American households" (maybe the better word would by "typical", since the $48K is median, not average) could live on the annual compensation of 500 CEOs.

ENARE wrote:
In addition to this, the Billions made by these CEO's are not hoarded, rather, they are reinvested into the economy in the form of purchasing stocks and bonds as well as consumer good which will inevitably employ quite a number more people in different industries.

Nobody ever said that "hoarding" of wealth in treasure chests was the problem with ridiculously-high compensation packages at the top. Of course they re-invest it and spend it. Money makes more money.

But the whole " reinvesting the money saved on tax cuts leads to more job creation-- may not be very true.

http://www.npr.org/...we-found-not-so-much


And if you are looking at purchasing consumer goods, than much higher percentage of lower-income people's earnings got into buying goods, compared to top earners. So by this logic, the way to stimulate the economy is to give more money to people who don't have a lot of it, so they can turn around and spend it, instead of giving it it the rich people.


ENARE


Dec 16, 2011, 1:46 PM
Post #7 of 28 (2182 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 8, 2011
Posts: 275

Re: [lena_chita] Redistribute the Wealth - CEO's make too much money [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

lena_chita wrote:
ENARE wrote:
lena_chita wrote:
ENARE wrote:
Is this a true statement? A little math for you:

Total compensation for all Fortune 500 CEO's / Total number of employees employed by fortune 500 Companies = X

What do you think the number is?

I will give you a guess, it is less than $300.

5,400,000,000/24,746,142 = X

Data based on 2006 numbers.


So much depends on how you spin the numbers:

Statement 1, based on your numbers above:

You could confiscate every single penny from the fortune 500 CEOs, divide it among all the employees of Fortune 500 companies, and they would get a 'bonus' check of only $218.

Statement 2, also based on your numbers above, and median household income for 2005 being $48,201 from this http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104688.html:

The CEOs of fortune 500 companies in 2006 made enough money to keep 112,030 FAMILIES living for a year at median household income.

Discuss.



Oh, and it is also 'slightly' misleading to take 500 CEOs, but not count various "vice-presidents" who probably make only slightly less than the top guy, and lump the VPs with Wallmart store clerks.

I think that your statement two may be a bit misleading. Due to the fact that these CEO's are already employing well over the 112,030 families you mention.

It is not meant to represent those people who are employed by fortune 500, but rather, how many "average American households" (maybe the better word would by "typical", since the $48K is median, not average) could live on the annual compensation of 500 CEOs.

ENARE wrote:
In addition to this, the Billions made by these CEO's are not hoarded, rather, they are reinvested into the economy in the form of purchasing stocks and bonds as well as consumer good which will inevitably employ quite a number more people in different industries.

Nobody ever said that "hoarding" of wealth in treasure chests was the problem with ridiculously-high compensation packages at the top. Of course they re-invest it and spend it. Money makes more money.

But the whole " reinvesting the money saved on tax cuts leads to more job creation-- may not be very true.

http://www.npr.org/...we-found-not-so-much


And if you are looking at purchasing consumer goods, than much higher percentage of lower-income people's earnings got into buying goods, compared to top earners. So by this logic, the way to stimulate the economy is to give more money to people who don't have a lot of it, so they can turn around and spend it, instead of giving it it the rich people.

The concern with raising income taxes ignores a variety of variables that should still be discussed. Such as, will the taxes rates raised by the government lead to higher tax revenues? and will the government used tax revenues to balance their spending, and will the money raised by the government be used to increase the wealth of the nation or just increase the incomes of a group within the country. Government spending should reflect tax revenues as a % of GDP.

Describing people in certain income brackets as rich is incorrect - Income and wealth are two different things. No matter how much income passes through your hands in a given year, you wealth depends on how much you have accumulated over the years. If you receive a million dollars and spend two million, you are not getting rich. But a frugal person living on a modest income can build wealth over time and die leaving vast amounts of wealth to their heirs. The money saved by these groups is put into banks where the money is lent out to businesses and home owners who will use that money to build wealth.

Also, by defining income earned by household (which has been decreasing for lower and middle class workers), per capita income is ignored which has been rising for these classes. - Real income per American househild rose only 6% over the entire period from 1969 to 1996. But real per capita income rose 51% over the same period. This reflected the declining number number of persons per household.

Also, data that is not taken into consideration for houshold size is that the number of persons within a household actually increases within the quintiles earning more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/...in_the_United_States

I was not able to listen to the npr link above becasue it is blocked on my computer, I will listen to it this afternoon when I can listen to it. I am interested to see


Toast_in_the_Machine


Dec 16, 2011, 2:12 PM
Post #8 of 28 (2178 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [ENARE] Redistribute the Wealth - CEO's make too much money [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

ENARE wrote:
I think that your statement two may be a bit misleading. Due to the fact that these CEO's are already employing well over the 112,030 families you mention.

CEO's don't employ anyone. The corporation employess the people, the CEO is also an employee.

ENARE wrote:
In addition to this, the Billions made by these CEO's are not hoarded, rather, they are reinvested into the economy in the form of purchasing stocks and bonds as well as consumer good which will inevitably employ quite a number more people in different industries.

So compensation made to officers of a company are better than compensation made to non-officers of a company because if someone has a great deal of money they will buy stocks and bonds. And you don't seriously still think that trick down works?

ENARE wrote:
Numbers that cannot be calculated accurately and are missing from the political discussion.

I do agree with your statement regarding the various VP's and other executives not taken into account.

All officers of publicly traded company's compensation plans are publicly available. If you want, you can calculate any company's executive compensation. Google an "8-K" and you there you have it.


ENARE


Dec 16, 2011, 3:18 PM
Post #9 of 28 (2167 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 8, 2011
Posts: 275

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] Redistribute the Wealth - CEO's make too much money [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:

CEO's don't employ anyone. The corporation employess the people, the CEO is also an employee.

Leaderless corporations do not employ people very well either. The valuation of the CEO to the company is reflected in this package. The people who employe the CEO's are the BOD - Who have just as much at stake in the success of this company. If you take this a step further, the share holders are the real employers and they have the largest stake in the success and failure of the company.

TITM wrote:

So compensation made to officers of a company are better than compensation made to non-officers of a company because if someone has a great deal of money they will buy stocks and bonds. And you don't seriously still think that trick down works?

In my first post, I demonstrated that the "redistribution effect" of taking 100% of fortune 500 companies Salaries and distributing it to each employee of the company would only factor out to a bonus of *$218. Would this add leaps and bounds to the aggregate purchasing power of society in a way that will build wealth and create jobs? My thought is no, but I am open to debate.

*This number does not reflect the amount that is also earned by the rest of the executive suite (VP'S CFO's etc.)

In reply to:
All officers of publicly traded company's compensation plans are publicly available. If you want, you can calculate any company's executive compensation. Google an "8-K" and you there you have it.

These are not the numbers I was referring too, rather, the numbers I am referencing are the impact these CEO's investments have on job creation and the growth of wealth within different industries within society. I already used data based on CEO salaries in my first post.


Partner cracklover


Dec 16, 2011, 4:08 PM
Post #10 of 28 (2155 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9935

Re: [ENARE] Redistribute the Wealth - CEO's make too much money [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

ENARE wrote:
In my first post, I demonstrated that the "redistribution effect" of taking 100% of fortune 500 companies Salaries and distributing it to each employee of the company would only factor out to a bonus of *$218. Would this add leaps and bounds to the aggregate purchasing power of society in a way that will build wealth and create jobs? My thought is no, but I am open to debate.

Actually, dollar-for-dollar, yeah, I think it would have a major impact.

Poor people spend all their money (and then some) on *stuff*. This has a big multipilicative (if that's a word) value.

What kinds of things to do very wealthy spend their $$ on? Homes, jewelry, luxury goods, expensive rents? That's the fraction that actually gets spent! Much of it probably does not get spent at all.

So do you think that buying, say, custom-designed jewelry, yachts, and multi-million-dollar homes has the same impact, dollar-for-dollar, as does food, gas, etc?

I strongly suspect that the further up the food-chain you go, the more the $$ disappears from the system. Lower down the $$ just goes round and round.

GO


Toast_in_the_Machine


Dec 16, 2011, 7:46 PM
Post #11 of 28 (2140 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [ENARE] Redistribute the Wealth - CEO's make too much money [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

ENARE wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
CEO's don't employ anyone. The corporation employess the people, the CEO is also an employee.
Leaderless corporations do not employ people very well either. The valuation of the CEO to the company is reflected in this package. The people who employe the CEO's are the BOD - Who have just as much at stake in the success of this company. If you take this a step further, the share holders are the real employers and they have the largest stake in the success and failure of the company.
It isn’t taking it a step further, shareholders are the owners of the corporation and are the employers. The BOD, as representatives of the shareholders (the owners), hires a CEO and indirectly hires the rest of the employees. The CEO is an employee, an officer of the corporation, but still only an employee. Their compensation is set by the BOD.

When you defend that CEO compensation is not too high, you run into several arguments. The first arguments are moral / societal, and I’ll hit on those later. The second objection is purely a market based argument, that CEO compensation is disproportionate to results. By this measure, CEO compensation is too high. If you are unfamiliar with this branch of modern economic thought, here is a nice link from a left leaning organization on CEO compensation: http://online.wsj.com/...erformance122509.pdf
“Money” quote:
wsj wrote:
We find a strong negative relation between annual pay and future returns. In the year after the firms are classified into the lowest and highest compensation deciles respectively, firms in the lowest total compensation decile earn insignificant returns. In contrast, the firms in the highest compensation decile earn highly significant abnormal returns of -4.38%. To put this into perspective, the average yearly loss in abnormal shareholder wealth for firms in the top decile of pay is $2.39 billion, after paying out an average of $22.7 million in total CEO compensation. The performance worsens significantly over time. In the five years after the classification period, firms in the high compensation decile earn a significant negative excess return of -12.27% while firms in the lowest compensation decile earn an insignificant 0.29%. These numbers are not driven by outliers since median excess returns show similar patterns. In addition, the results are robust to alternative methods of benchmark adjusting pay and returns.

ENARE wrote:
TITM wrote:
So compensation made to officers of a company are better than compensation made to non-officers of a company because if someone has a great deal of money they will buy stocks and bonds. And you don't seriously still think that trick down works?
In my first post, I demonstrated that the "redistribution effect" of taking 100% of fortune 500 companies Salaries and distributing it to each employee of the company would only factor out to a bonus of *$218. Would this add leaps and bounds to the aggregate purchasing power of society in a way that will build wealth and create jobs? My thought is no, but I am open to debate.

It is an easy argument to refute. What would the economic impact of $218 be to someone who works as a greeter in Walmart or to Mike Duke? The answer is stunningly simple. The money to the greeter would be immediately used in the economy whereas the incremental dollars to Mike Duke would not be noticed. (It is about what he earns in three quarters of a second). The $218 would be used to buy goods and services and have an immediate economic increase. Now, because Walmart is such a large employer, the split you have would be for only about $16 per person. That is a little less than two hours wage for a starting Walmart employee. For Mr. Duke, that is about 4 hundredths of a seconds of compensation. He wouldn’t notice it; the starting employee would spend it.

Now, if you want to say from an immediate tax plan policy, would such a plan (immediate redistribution) stimulate the economy? Nope. We tried that, and for those forgot the tax checks back in 2001, here is an analysis:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/...omic-Help.aspx#page1

In reply to:
Subsequent analysis showed that the rebate had virtually no stimulative effect, exactly as economic theory predicted. By and large, people saved the rebate rather than spend it. And the savings didn’t even do any good because the deficit, which is negative saving, increased by the same amount. In any case, the economy continued to deteriorate and unemployment rose sharply despite the tax cut.

So, economically, there is a benefit to those of lower incomes where any incremental dollars are more dear, however, history has shown that immediate cash grants have no macro economic impact. However, CEO’s pay is outside of performance and in fact, more pay correlates to worse performance.

So, yes, CEO’s are overpaid.


rmsusa


Dec 18, 2011, 11:36 AM
Post #12 of 28 (2115 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 24, 2004
Posts: 1017

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] Redistribute the Wealth - CEO's make too much money [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
The second objection is purely a market based argument, that CEO compensation is disproportionate to results.

That's not a market based argument.


Partner j_ung


Dec 18, 2011, 12:39 PM
Post #13 of 28 (2109 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [rmsusa] Redistribute the Wealth - CEO's make too much money [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

rmsusa wrote:
In reply to:
The second objection is purely a market based argument, that CEO compensation is disproportionate to results.

That's not a market based argument.

This entire thread is a straw man. "Redistribute the wealth" is a Republican catch phrase designed to make people think that Democrats want to literally seize money from wealthy people and give it to non-wealthy people.

The underlying issues are fair taxation and the influence of money in politics. To talk about "redistributing wealth" in any other context is intellectually dishonest.


Toast_in_the_Machine


Dec 18, 2011, 4:02 PM
Post #14 of 28 (2096 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [j_ung] Redistribute the Wealth - CEO's make too much money [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
rmsusa wrote:
In reply to:
The second objection is purely a market based argument, that CEO compensation is disproportionate to results.

That's not a market based argument.

This entire thread is a straw man. "Redistribute the wealth" is a Republican catch phrase designed to make people think that Democrats want to literally seize money from wealthy people and give it to non-wealthy people.

The underlying issues are fair taxation and the influence of money in politics. To talk about "redistributing wealth" in any other context is intellectually dishonest.


Pshaw. The American people are not so easily distracted.

Look Lindsay Lohan is in Playboy
http://www.cnn.com/...index.html?hpt=hp_t3


camhead


Dec 19, 2011, 5:03 AM
Post #15 of 28 (2074 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20658

Re: [rmsusa] Redistribute the Wealth - CEO's make too much money [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

rmsusa wrote:
In reply to:
The second objection is purely a market based argument, that CEO compensation is disproportionate to results.

That's not a market based argument.

Yeah, a market-based argument would be, "they pay themselves as much as they can get away with, then when the company goes belly-up they take their awesome retirement and leave the mess for someone else to clean up."


atg200


Dec 20, 2011, 4:52 AM
Post #16 of 28 (2033 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 4317

Post deleted by atg200 [In reply to]
Report this Post

 


guangzhou


Dec 20, 2011, 4:51 PM
Post #17 of 28 (2006 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 3388

Re: [atg200] Redistribute the Wealth - CEO's make too much money [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

atg200 wrote:
It also doesn't help that most people who sit on the Boards of Directors are either CEOs, former CEOs, or aspiring CEOs. They have an incentive to see that CEO pay rises above any value the CEO provides to the company so their own compensation keeps inflating as well.

It also probably doesn't help much that everyone on the board is fabulously wealthy, so these huge numbers seem normal. It would be interesting to add a janitor to the board just to break the groupthink.

Adding someone with no knowledge on how to make money or grow income to a board would definitely break something.


yanqui


Dec 21, 2011, 7:26 AM
Post #18 of 28 (1989 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 24, 2004
Posts: 1550

Re: [guangzhou] Redistribute the Wealth - CEO's make too much money [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

guangzhou wrote:
atg200 wrote:
It also doesn't help that most people who sit on the Boards of Directors are either CEOs, former CEOs, or aspiring CEOs. They have an incentive to see that CEO pay rises above any value the CEO provides to the company so their own compensation keeps inflating as well.

It also probably doesn't help much that everyone on the board is fabulously wealthy, so these huge numbers seem normal. It would be interesting to add a janitor to the board just to break the groupthink.

Adding someone with no knowledge on how to make money or grow income to a board would definitely break something.

Haven't you ever heard of Norway's pension fund? It's one of the world's biggest investment funds and has out performed many major investment banks. In fact, for many years it was run by one of the most successful investors in the world. The guy was a government employee who made about 150,000 dollars a year. Meanwhile Wall Street banks run by guys who made billions had to get government hand outs to keep from going tits up. So as you can clearly see, outrageously high compensation doesn't say much of anything about the knowledge to "grow" money.


(This post was edited by yanqui on Dec 21, 2011, 7:27 AM)


camhead


Dec 21, 2011, 10:34 AM
Post #19 of 28 (1974 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20658

Re: [yanqui] Redistribute the Wealth - CEO's make too much money [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

yanqui wrote:
guangzhou wrote:
atg200 wrote:
It also doesn't help that most people who sit on the Boards of Directors are either CEOs, former CEOs, or aspiring CEOs. They have an incentive to see that CEO pay rises above any value the CEO provides to the company so their own compensation keeps inflating as well.

It also probably doesn't help much that everyone on the board is fabulously wealthy, so these huge numbers seem normal. It would be interesting to add a janitor to the board just to break the groupthink.

Adding someone with no knowledge on how to make money or grow income to a board would definitely break something.

Haven't you ever heard of Norway's pension fund? It's one of the world's biggest investment funds and has out performed many major investment banks. In fact, for many years it was run by one of the most successful investors in the world. The guy was a government employee who made about 150,000 dollars a year. Meanwhile Wall Street banks run by guys who made billions had to get government hand outs to keep from going tits up. So as you can clearly see, outrageously high compensation doesn't say much of anything about the knowledge to "grow" money.

Yeah, but Norway is in the middle of that butter crisis, so, you're argument is invalid.


yanqui


Dec 22, 2011, 9:50 AM
Post #20 of 28 (1905 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 24, 2004
Posts: 1550

Re: [camhead] Redistribute the Wealth - CEO's make too much money [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
yanqui wrote:
guangzhou wrote:
atg200 wrote:
It also doesn't help that most people who sit on the Boards of Directors are either CEOs, former CEOs, or aspiring CEOs. They have an incentive to see that CEO pay rises above any value the CEO provides to the company so their own compensation keeps inflating as well.

It also probably doesn't help much that everyone on the board is fabulously wealthy, so these huge numbers seem normal. It would be interesting to add a janitor to the board just to break the groupthink.

Adding someone with no knowledge on how to make money or grow income to a board would definitely break something.

Haven't you ever heard of Norway's pension fund? It's one of the world's biggest investment funds and has out performed many major investment banks. In fact, for many years it was run by one of the most successful investors in the world. The guy was a government employee who made about 150,000 dollars a year. Meanwhile Wall Street banks run by guys who made billions had to get government hand outs to keep from going tits up. So as you can clearly see, outrageously high compensation doesn't say much of anything about the knowledge to "grow" money.

Yeah, but Norway is in the middle of that butter crisis, so, you're argument is invalid.

HA! So rmsusa was right all along. Just look at the pain and grief a country must suffer because it limits free trade. Inflated butter prices. People smuggling slabs of butter across the boarder. A ruined holiday baking season. And for what? All to protect a small group of lazy, fat-cat dairy farmers. Now I can see the freedom to buy cheap Chinese imports at Wal-Mart is without a doubt the superior way.


damienclimber


Dec 22, 2011, 3:08 PM
Post #21 of 28 (1869 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 13, 2011
Posts: 313

Re: [camhead] Redistribute the Wealth - CEO's make too much money [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
yanqui wrote:
guangzhou wrote:
atg200 wrote:
It also doesn't help that most people who sit on the Boards of Directors are either CEOs, former CEOs, or aspiring CEOs. They have an incentive to see that CEO pay rises above any value the CEO provides to the company so their own compensation keeps inflating as well.

It also probably doesn't help much that everyone on the board is fabulously wealthy, so these huge numbers seem normal. It would be interesting to add a janitor to the board just to break the groupthink.

Adding someone with no knowledge on how to make money or grow income to a board would definitely break something.

Haven't you ever heard of Norway's pension fund? It's one of the world's biggest investment funds and has out performed many major investment banks. In fact, for many years it was run by one of the most successful investors in the world. The guy was a government employee who made about 150,000 dollars a year. Meanwhile Wall Street banks run by guys who made billions had to get government hand outs to keep from going tits up. So as you can clearly see, outrageously high compensation doesn't say much of anything about the knowledge to "grow" money.

Yeah, but Norway is in the middle of that butter crisis, so, you're argument is invalid.

Norway sells 9 out of 10 butters from Norway.
They don't want foreign butter.
Now Denmark and Sweden are trying to help/sell them butter.

It doesn't change their investment /pension fund performance being well run ,and successful.


Partner j_ung


Dec 24, 2011, 8:40 AM
Post #22 of 28 (1826 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [damienclimber] Redistribute the Wealth - CEO's make too much money [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Does it change the performance of the sarcasm fun? Wink


thenose


Jan 12, 2012, 10:14 PM
Post #23 of 28 (1643 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 19, 2009
Posts: 47

Re: [ENARE] Redistribute the Wealth - CEO's make too much money [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

ENARE wrote:
Is this a true statement? A little math for you:

Total compensation for all Fortune 500 CEO's / Total number of employees employed by fortune 500 Companies = X (Money that could be redistributed to the lesser earning employees of Fortune 500 companies)

What do you think the number is?

I will give you a guess, it is less than $300.

5,400,000,000/24,746,142 = $218

Data based on 2006 numbers.
So whats the articles point? CEO's dont make as much money as you might think? And this synthesized and irrelevant formula is suppose to prove this? Well I can make up a bullshit irrelevant formula to prove a point too.

Lets say the President made 100 BILLION dollars per year. You would agree he would be a bit overpaid, no? Well if he decided to work for free and submit his wadge to the general public, every American would receive a "refund check" for only $318, about the same as if your CEO's worked for free. So I guess by that notion our multibillionaire baller President doesent make that much either.

See, I can synthesize erroneous formulas to prove an invalid point too.


(This post was edited by thenose on Jan 12, 2012, 10:19 PM)


rmsusa


Jan 13, 2012, 11:23 AM
Post #24 of 28 (1605 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 24, 2004
Posts: 1017

Re: [yanqui] Redistribute the Wealth - CEO's make too much money [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
HA! So rmsusa was right all along. Just look at the pain and grief a country must suffer because it limits free trade.

Being in Argentina, you have the opportunity to examine one of those cases up close and personal. Money sniffing dogs!? What possible reason could there be for capital flight? In a more personal way, try to buy a pair of FiveTen Anasazi's in Buenos Aires (or Bariloche? Córdoba?, Mendoza?). That's a zillion times worse than butter.

All kidding aside, have you had a chance to look at "The Rational Optimist". The hypotheses: that humanity has come this far because we exchange things (trade) is presented in a compelling and accesible way.


yanqui


Jan 18, 2012, 11:15 AM
Post #25 of 28 (1517 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 24, 2004
Posts: 1550

Re: [rmsusa] Redistribute the Wealth - CEO's make too much money [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

rmsusa wrote:
In reply to:
HA! So rmsusa was right all along. Just look at the pain and grief a country must suffer because it limits free trade.

Being in Argentina, you have the opportunity to examine one of those cases up close and personal. Money sniffing dogs!? What possible reason could there be for capital flight? In a more personal way, try to buy a pair of FiveTen Anasazi's in Buenos Aires (or Bariloche? Córdoba?, Mendoza?). That's a zillion times worse than butter.

All kidding aside, have you had a chance to look at "The Rational Optimist". The hypotheses: that humanity has come this far because we exchange things (trade) is presented in a compelling and accesible way.

You forgot to check here for the Anazazis (they deliver) :

http://vivacequipamientos.com.ar/...uemart&Itemid=26

You can get Evolvs here:

http://www.nakaoutdoors.com.ar/...patillas-de-escalada

Sure, the prices (in pesos with a 4.4 exchange rate) are a little high, but salaries for the middle class here are about six times higher (in dollars) than they were 10 years ago. How's that free trade working for middle class in the US?

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Community : The Soap Box

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook