“Now we know why CEOs didn’t want this data released,”

[Lumpenproletariat]

Babysitting unneeded workers is a good campaigning crusade for demagogues, but not good business.

What is superior about these CEOs that justifies their pay?

They fail as often as they succeed. Their so-called talents are not easily seen.

One of their talents, which we're not supposed to talk about, is their ability to lay off unneeded uncompetitive workers who cost the company more than they're worth, also to resist pressure for higher wages.

No that is the last resort of a scumbag without any ideas.

No, he has a good idea: get rid of someone no longer needed. Or reduce their wage to a level reflecting their lower value. In other words, adjust to change. How is adjusting to change not a good idea? How does adjusting to change make someone a "scumbag"? It's the worker no longer needed who is the scumbag, if he expects the company to still subsidize him even though it no longer needs him.

That's good thinking, good philosophy, a good idea for anyone running a company.

If you have labor and cannot find something productive for them to do then you have failed at leadership.

So you mean a small struggling company which found a way to produce its service better with a computer/robot must still keep the 2 or 3 clerks it no longer needs, paying the extra $100,000 per year and "find something productive for them to do"?

Why is it the company's obligation to "find something productive for them to do" instead of making a profit serving its customers? Why is "finding something productive for them to do" more important than serving the consumers with a good product or service?

And the rules for a small struggling company are no different than those for a mega-giant-super corporation. The function of the business is to serve consumers, not provide "something productive for them to do" -- that company did not succeed and become bigger by babysitting workers, but by using those workers to serve consumers and terminating the ones not useful for that end.

CULT OF PERSONALITY.

You mean Donald Trump? He's your ideal, preaching to companies to hire (or retain) workers they don't need with his "Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!" babble, and threatening to punish them if they outsource jobs instead of babysitting the unneeded workers as you demand.

The jobs-before-profit demagogues, like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, are the best examples of today's personality cults. That's why they drew the largest crowds in the 2016 campaign. They are great cult gurus skillful at telling the mob what it wants to hear.

 

[bilby]

So let me get this straight. We have people here trying to justify these obscene wages?

I agree they are obscene not to mention illogical and hugely disproportionate.
But for some reason there are shareholders willing to pay those amounts of money - and it IS their money after all.

No, it's not the shareholders' money. If I buy some shares, every cent of the money I pay for those shares goes to the person who sells them to me (or as commission to a broker). None goes to the company, except in the rare case of a public offering.

The money paid to the CEO comes from profits - the difference between what customers paid for the goods or services, and what they cost to produce and provide; or from borrowings against future profits.

It's the customers' money, not the shareholders'.

 

[untermensche]

No that is the last resort of a scumbag without any ideas.

No, he has a good idea: get rid of someone no longer needed.

They have no need because the worthless scumbag has no ideas and cannot connect willing labor to productive work.

All these worthless scumbags do is ride the winds of fortune.

They do not create success. They cannot do it.

A company succeeds or fails despite them.

They are totally unneeded.

What is needed is productive labor and minds that can put that labor to use.

Not these worthless overpriced figureheads for those that need a "father figure" without ideas for some reason.

 

[Harry Bosch]

So let me get this straight. We have people here trying to justify these obscene wages?

I agree they are obscene not to mention illogical and hugely disproportionate.
But for some reason there are shareholders willing to pay those amounts of money - and it IS their money after all.

No, it's not the shareholders' money. If I buy some shares, every cent of the money I pay for those shares goes to the person who sells them to me (or as commission to a broker). None goes to the company, except in the rare case of a public offering.

The money paid to the CEO comes from profits - the difference between what customers paid for the goods or services, and what they cost to produce and provide; or from borrowings against future profits.

It's the customers' money, not the shareholders'.

A substantial amount of CEO pay comes from stock options. You might have some shares of a publically traded company, but companies retain substantial shares as well. Companies offer share options at certain prices to officers. Then as stock prices go up (you buying company shares increases the value of stock), the officers sell the options. This is one of the many reasons why companies are focused on increasing shareholder value and rising stocks.

 

[Bomb#20]

Some of it really is obscene. I can't think why anyone would be worth such an obscene amount of money.

CEO's are in a highly responsible position and should be paid well for their work, but not at their current rates and bonuses.
The ratio between those at the top and the rest of us has gotten way out of hand. To the point of obscenity.

I'm surprised that there is, generally speaking, no real sense of outrage. Or any apparent likelihood of addressing the issue in the foreseeable future.

So let me get this straight. We have people here trying to justify these obscene wages?

Your wordings are all admirably precise. "Obscene [uh b-seen] adjective 1. offensive to morality or decency; indecent; depraved:". "An obscenity is any utterance or act that strongly offends the prevalent morality of the time."

The thing that's wrong with paying a remarkably high wage is exactly the same thing that not so long ago was wrong with using a contraceptive, and wrong with giving women information about family planning, and wrong with exotic dancing, and wrong with drawing erotic pictures, and wrong with writing poems with homosexual themes. These are all acts that have been widely considered "obscene", and all for the same reason: they are offensive. They offend the sensibilities of him who takes offense when other people choose not to limit themselves to the behaviors his religion authorizes.

 

[Bomb#20]

CEO's are in a highly responsible position and should be paid well for their work, but not at their current rates and bonuses.
The ratio between those at the top and the rest of us has gotten way out of hand. To the point of obscenity.

I'm surprised that there is, generally speaking, no real sense of outrage. Or any apparent likelihood of addressing the issue in the foreseeable future.

Not sure where you're getting that. There's real outrage against it all over the place -- this thread, for instance. Popular politicians have advocated outlawing it.

TBH, what I don't understand is what the point is of earning $100m a year. What can you do with that, that you couldn't do with $10m? If someone paid me as little as $1m/year, I would retire after a couple of years, with a nice house, a couple of nice cars, and all the food and drink I want, and with plenty of spending money for hobbies.
...
It's like accumulating wealth is an objective in its own right. If they accumulated old newspapers instead of dollars, we would sadly shake our heads at the poor crazy obsessive guy.

But when it's dollars, not only do we consider them sane; We somehow imagine them worthy of deep respect. It's nuts.

Not only nuts. Outrageous.

Lots of people are outraged by pointless things other people find fun. Some people have anal sex for fun, and millions of other people think that's pointless, and nuts, and outrageous. Some people draw cartoons of Muhammad for fun, and millions of other people think that's pointless, and nuts, and outrageous. No mystery there -- one man's fun is another man's outrage.

What's puzzling is why any thinking person would imagine outrage is a rational way to decide public policy. That's nuts. But when it's dollars, apparently it's customary to consider the outraged people sane, and worthy of deep respect.

 

[Bomb#20]

So let me get this straight. We have people here trying to justify these obscene wages?

True, but a lot of old and fat companies find themselves in the situation where they need "restructuring" and some CEOs are specialized in just that - going in and firing lots of people who, truth to be told, are dead weight. Some (smaller companies) CEOs may find it hard to fire people they have known for a long time, better hire someone outside.

Many CEO's are probably good managers within the context in which they operate, but this still does not justify their overblown salaries and bonuses.

They’re most likely talented at schmoozing and networking.

They are good at politicking and strategizing. If the company is public, they are good at getting their stock sold. Actually, the skill level is quite high and takes the right temperament, education, strategic vision, and very unusual experience sets. Good leaders are rare. Most leaders aren't very good.

None of that justifies a culture that places no limits on the wealth an individual can accumulate.

"Justify"?!? What "justifies" a culture that places no limits on the sexes an individual can exchange bodily fluids with? Can any of you tell us what "justifies" a man getting a penis in his anus, or a woman getting one in her diaphragm-blocked vagina? Are my partner and I supposed to explain to the rest of our pronatalist culture how they will benefit from us having sex even though they won't get their precious extra baby out of it, before that culture is "justified" in allowing us to proceed?

If you seriously need "justification", here it is. It's two words long. But they're the two most offensive, outrageous, obscene words in any language. Do not click if you can't bear to read them. You have been trigger-warned.

Show

Consenting adults.

 

[Lion IRC]

...and it IS their money after all.

No, it's not the shareholders' money.

Yes. It really is.

If I buy some shares...

...with your money

The money paid to the CEO comes from profits - the difference between what customers paid for the goods or services, and what they cost to produce and provide; or from borrowings against future profits

Thanks for explaining how profits are made. Did they teach you that at Harvard?
Now answer me this, do the owners of companies - the shareholders - have any rights to decide how much they compensate their CEO's?

It's the customers' money, not the shareholders'.

Oh great. So after I have bought something and I hand over money to the company from which I bought it, it's still my money.
...since I am the customer.

 

[Axulus]

So let me get this straight. We have people here trying to justify these obscene wages?

I agree they are obscene not to mention illogical and hugely disproportionate.
But for some reason there are shareholders willing to pay those amounts of money - and it IS their money after all.

No, it's not the shareholders' money. If I buy some shares, every cent of the money I pay for those shares goes to the person who sells them to me (or as commission to a broker). None goes to the company, except in the rare case of a public offering.

The money paid to the CEO comes from profits - the difference between what customers paid for the goods or services, and what they cost to produce and provide; or from borrowings against future profits.

It's the customers' money, not the shareholders'.

The shareholders collectively own the company. That includes all the cash in the company's bank accounts. I'm surprised you would dispute this.

 

[Bomb#20]

Why tax the corporations, who can just restructure to avoid the taxes? Far better to tax individual income.

Close the loopholes on personal income; set a few new tax brackets above the existing structure, and apply very high rates to the top brackets. A person earning $10,000,000 per annum pays less than 40% on earnings over half a million dollars. He can afford to pay (for example)80% tax on income above $1m, 90% above $5m, and 99% above $8m. He's not going to go hungry. And if the top rates are sufficiently high, they set an effective ceiling on earnings.

No, they set a threshold beyond which you get huge tax evasion.

Tax evasion is deliberately built into the tax system. It need not be there; If governments didn't want rich people to be able to evade taxes, they could easily prevent them from doing so.

A loophole is just a concealed tax cut. And tax cuts for the hyper-rich have always been popular with their bribe taking political buddies. How do you think you tax structure got to the point where progressivity completely vanishes above a measly half-million per annum? Is a billion a year really so similar to half a million?

Similar? A billion is exactly the same as half a million, with respect to the only substantive reason you've offered for progressivity. A billionaire can afford to pay 99% above $8m. He's not going to go hungry. A plain vanilla rich guy can afford to pay 99% above $0.5m. He's not going to go hungry. Do you have any argument for why progressivity ought not to completely vanish above a measly half-million per annum, other than a spiteful wish to set an effective ceiling on earnings because you feel malice toward the very rich?

The reasonable grounds for progressivity in a tax system are to compassionately give a break to the working poor, because doing a citizen's full part in contributing to society's overhead is a hardship for them. It isn't a hardship for a billionaire to do his full part. It isn't a hardship for a millionaire to do his full part. Trying to decide what's fair between millionaires and billionaires based on how sorry you feel for people going hungry is idiotic. There's more to fairness than a leftist's tear ducts.

When a person is ordered to work 2 days a month on the king's corvee, for him to accuse his neighbor who has to give the king 9 days of her life every month of "not doing her fair share" is disgraceful.

 

[laughing dog]

What's puzzling is why any thinking person would imagine outrage is a rational way to decide public policy. That's nuts. But when it's dollars, apparently it's customary to consider the outraged people sane, and worthy of deep respect.

I agree that is puzzling why any thinking person would imagine outrage is a rational way to decide public policy. But I am puzzled why any thinking person would conclude anyone is proposing that outrage be used as a rational way to decide public policy. What I am seeing here, is that "outrage" is used as a descriptor of an unacceptable or unappetizing outcome - sort of an alarm bell to get people thinking (hopefully in a rational way) about the issue and possible (if any) viable public policy options.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So let me get this straight. We have people here trying to justify these obscene wages?

I agree they are obscene not to mention illogical and hugely disproportionate.
But for some reason there are shareholders willing to pay those amounts of money - and it IS their money after all.

No, it's not the shareholders' money. If I buy some shares, every cent of the money I pay for those shares goes to the person who sells them to me (or as commission to a broker). None goes to the company, except in the rare case of a public offering.

The money paid to the CEO comes from profits - the difference between what customers paid for the goods or services, and what they cost to produce and provide; or from borrowings against future profits.

It's the customers' money, not the shareholders'.

But in general the value of the stock is approximately the net present value of the expected future dividends the company pays out. When you pay out money to CEOs it's not available to pay dividends. Thus it does come out of shareholder pockets.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No that is the last resort of a scumbag without any ideas.

No, he has a good idea: get rid of someone no longer needed.

They have no need because the worthless scumbag has no ideas and cannot connect willing labor to productive work.

All these worthless scumbags do is ride the winds of fortune.

They do not create success. They cannot do it.

A company succeeds or fails despite them.

They are totally unneeded.

What is needed is productive labor and minds that can put that labor to use.

Not these worthless overpriced figureheads for those that need a "father figure" without ideas for some reason.

There's a reason bankers look at upper management rather than workers in deciding the ability of a company to repay a loan.

I've also seen what happens when upper management isn't doing it's job. Same workers.

 

[DBT]

Not sure where you're getting that. There's real outrage against it all over the place -- this thread, for instance. Popular politicians have advocated outlawing it.

Not only nuts. Outrageous.

Lots of people are outraged by pointless things other people find fun. Some people have anal sex for fun, and millions of other people think that's pointless, and nuts, and outrageous. Some people draw cartoons of Muhammad for fun, and millions of other people think that's pointless, and nuts, and outrageous. No mystery there -- one man's fun is another man's outrage.

What's puzzling is why any thinking person would imagine outrage is a rational way to decide public policy. That's nuts. But when it's dollars, apparently it's customary to consider the outraged people sane, and worthy of deep respect.

Obviously there are people who are outraged by the sheer disparity in wealth between those at the top and the rest of us, which includes the exorbitant salary packages of the CEO's in question, but my point is that the outrage does not relate to the scale of the problem.

The level of outrage does not appear to be strong enough to motivate action effective enough to bring about change for the better, it is a level of outrage that is easily ignored by the very rich, by CEO's with their generous salary packages, by Political parties, etc, because it is an empty ineffectual outrage, posting on the Internet, mildly bitter comments made while sipping beer in a bar......

 

[Bomb#20]

Obviously there are people who are outraged by the sheer disparity in wealth between those at the top and the rest of us, which includes the exorbitant salary packages of the CEO's in question, but my point is that the outrage does not relate to the scale of the problem.

The level of outrage does not appear to be strong enough to motivate action effective enough to bring about change for the better...

Well, what is the scale of the problem? Most CEOs get paid less than doctors. Just how many CEOs are we talking about who are outraging the folks who are outraged by stockholders giving away their money in ways that outrage the easily outrageable? This seems to me like a pretty small-scale problem compared to, say, the number of Ugandans who are outraging the other Ugandans who are outraged by gay people giving away their sperm in ways that outrage the easily outrageable. There've got to be a lot more Ugandan gays than American CEOs. If outrage is what it takes to bring about a change for the better, doesn't the scale of the problem that some Ugandans are gay make that a problem crying out for a lot more outrage?

 

[DBT]

Obviously there are people who are outraged by the sheer disparity in wealth between those at the top and the rest of us, which includes the exorbitant salary packages of the CEO's in question, but my point is that the outrage does not relate to the scale of the problem.

The level of outrage does not appear to be strong enough to motivate action effective enough to bring about change for the better...

Well, what is the scale of the problem? Most CEOs get paid less than doctors. Just how many CEOs are we talking about.. ..

I gave an overview of the problem earlier;

This is the problem;
Quote;
''Across all companies, the average CEO pay was $13.8 million per year, the average median worker pay was about $77,800, and the average ratio of CEO pay to median worker pay was 204. In other words, on average, CEOs earn around 204 times what his or her median worker earns.Aug 25, 2015''

We are not talking about CEO's who ''get paid less than doctors'' (not all doctors have the same income), we are discussing excessive incomes, and wealth, of a small percentage of the population....which, taken as a whole, exceeds the wealth of the rest of us


Key Facts
The richest 1% of Americans own 35% of the nation's wealth. The bottom 80% own just 11% of the nation's wealth.
In the 1950s and 1960s, when the economy was booming, the wealthiest Americans paid a top income tax rate of 91%. Today, the top rate is 43.4%.
The richest 1% pay an effective federal income tax rate of 24.7% in 2014; someone making an average of $75,000 is paying a 19.7% rate.
The average federal income tax rate of the richest 400 Americans was just 20 percent in 2009.
Taxing investment income at a much lower rate than salaries and wages are taxed loses $1.3 trillion over 10 years.
1,470 households reported income of more than $1 million in 2009 but paid zero federal income taxes on it.
CEOs of major corporations earn nearly 300 times more than an average worker.
30 percent of income inequality is due to unfair taxes and budget cuts to services and benefits.
The largest contributor to increasing income inequality has been changes in income from capital gains and dividends.

 

[untermensche]

They have no need because the worthless scumbag has no ideas and cannot connect willing labor to productive work.

All these worthless scumbags do is ride the winds of fortune.

They do not create success. They cannot do it.

A company succeeds or fails despite them.

They are totally unneeded.

What is needed is productive labor and minds that can put that labor to use.

Not these worthless overpriced figureheads for those that need a "father figure" without ideas for some reason.

There's a reason bankers look at upper management rather than workers in deciding the ability of a company to repay a loan.

Yes because the workers have no legal control of anything.

They are hired servants.

 

[dismal]

They have no need because the worthless scumbag has no ideas and cannot connect willing labor to productive work.

All these worthless scumbags do is ride the winds of fortune.

They do not create success. They cannot do it.

A company succeeds or fails despite them.

They are totally unneeded.

What is needed is productive labor and minds that can put that labor to use.

Not these worthless overpriced figureheads for those that need a "father figure" without ideas for some reason.

There's a reason bankers look at upper management rather than workers in deciding the ability of a company to repay a loan.

Yes because the workers have no legal control of anything.

They are hired servants.

CEOs are hired servants too. They are workers. Hirable, firable.

 

[untermensche]

Yes because the workers have no legal control of anything.

They are hired servants.

CEOs are hired servants too. They are workers. Hirable, firable.

There is a big difference between an employee that controls the company and a servant that controls nothing.

Control is power.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I gave an overview of the problem earlier;


Key Facts
The richest 1% of Americans own 35% of the nation's wealth. The bottom 80% own just 11% of the nation's wealth.

Pareto would be 20%, so it's not that far off.

In the 1950s and 1960s, when the economy was booming, the wealthiest Americans paid a top income tax rate of 91%. Today, the top rate is 43.4%.

Trying to compare the tax rates of the 50's and 60's to now proves nothing--few people actually paid that kind of tax becuase there were so many loopholes.

Taxing investment income at a much lower rate than salaries and wages are taxed loses $1.3 trillion over 10 years.

On average, investments are taxed as much as wages once you look at it in constant dollars. (Interest, however, you really get screwed on.)

1,470 households reported income of more than $1 million in 2009 but paid zero federal income taxes on it.

This is one of those factoids meant to inflame, not meant to convey reality. There are two possible interpretations of what's going on:

1) That "income" is before deductions. There are a couple of possibly huge ones there--medical and casualty loss. It's quite possible those households are ones with high income who self-insured--and took a huge hit that year. (Setting the threshold lower you also get the people who are liquidating assets to pay for medical care at home in lieu of going to a nursing home. Pretty hard to reach $1m this way, though.)

2) That "income" is AGI. At that point there are very few items that could zero it out, I believe all are deliberately done as incentives towards certain behavior.

- - - Updated - - -

They have no need because the worthless scumbag has no ideas and cannot connect willing labor to productive work.

All these worthless scumbags do is ride the winds of fortune.

They do not create success. They cannot do it.

A company succeeds or fails despite them.

They are totally unneeded.

What is needed is productive labor and minds that can put that labor to use.

Not these worthless overpriced figureheads for those that need a "father figure" without ideas for some reason.

There's a reason bankers look at upper management rather than workers in deciding the ability of a company to repay a loan.

Yes because the workers have no legal control of anything.

They are hired servants.

If it wasn't the actions of upper management that mattered the banks would have no reason to look at them instead of the workers.

Thus we can conclude the actions of upper management are very important to the success or failure of the company.