Yes, clearly his point isn't anecdotal, jesus chrsit conservatives are fucking retarded.
Obvious facts aren't any less truthful or valid.
You mad? You sound mad.
Guy 1:
"From what i've seen, ceo's don't have much value'
Guy 2:
"From what i've seen, yes they do"
Fucking imbecile conservative: HAHA, second guy owned your anecdote with FACTS
Funny thing is, there is a very logical reason for CEO's extracting more value than they deserve that i explained, interlocking directorates (and also principal/agent problem), i don't see either of you offering much besides, 'well i think ceo's work hard and earn what they get, hurf durf'
His six other CEO buddies that happen to be on his company's board voted that he get those cookies you mean.
Guy 1:
"From what i've seen, ceo's don't have much value'
Guy 2:
"From what i've seen, yes they do"
Fucking imbecile conservative: HAHA, second guy owned your anecdote with FACTS
Funny thing is, there is a very logical reason for CEO's extracting more value than they deserve that i explained, interlocking directorates (and also principal/agent problem), i don't see either of you offering much besides, 'well i think ceo's work hard and earn what they get, hurf durf'
I know this isn't a response to me but I personally am not really trying to argue actual facts. I am arguing what is more plausible.
Your position: Most CEOs are paid more than the value that they provide the company.
My position: Most companies intend to get more value out of the employees (including the top officers) than they pay them. That is called making a profit in the business world and I believe that it is much more plausible that companies intend to make a profit.
That doesn't mean they always make the right decision but I would wager that they do more often than not.
Actually there has been zero evidence that shows that "most" (code word for "ALL") CEO's are "lazy, useless and provide no significant value to a company".
If you want to change the subject to CEO's compensation or perks then go right ahead and make another thread.
You're the one who's changing the subject, i never said they were 'lazy', just not worth what they do compared to what people under them do.
You forgot the end, where the union guy takes the last one for himself
Actually, before he took the last one he arrange for other folks to be outside picketing that a union carpenter should have been hired to install the cookie plate. And after he'd file for workman's comp for injuries sustained while lifting the donut.
The tea partier would be too busy complaining about the taxes on the donut to actually eat it.
I know this isn't a response to me but I personally am not really trying to argue actual facts. I am arguing what is more plausible.
Your position: Most CEOs are paid more than the value that they provide the company.
My position: Most companies intend to get more value out of the employees (including the top officers) than they pay them. That is called making a profit in the business world and I believe that it is much more plausible that companies intend to make a profit.
That doesn't mean they always make the right decision but I would wager that they do more often than not.
So by what measurement of value are you using (putting aside your personal opinions on CEO's) to come up with this assessment on the worth of a CEO to a company and how does this hold true to with every CEO?
I have to finish some stuff, but if i remember to later, i'm going to write about what i saw at IBM and an explanation of 'interlocking directorates' (i've probably done it 4 or 5 times already, you could probably search for it if you looked up my username, 'interlocking directorate', and 'ibm' in search for P&N). It's the very definition of conflict of interest and leads to bad incentives.
We're not really in agreement. Do some of their abuses of corporations come from government? Sometimes, but how do you explain interlocking directorates? Probably THE biggest reasons CEO pay are structured poorly and they are not accountable for their actions? When i worked for IBM several years ago, my CEO was on the board of directors of Exxon, he was the director of the board for IBM (how the fuck is that even allowed), and there was an ex-Exxon exec sitting on IBM's board. This is not the work of the government.
LMAO. Very few CEO's fit this description (maybe Steve Jobs). Most know how to play 'the game'.
And now i'll just quote myself since the last time i brought this up:
The CEO already has leverage into how contracts are written. Even though boards are supposed to represent the shareholders, they acquiesce to CEO's. To have the CEO ALSO be the director of the board is absolutely heinous. Typically interlocking directorates are not that obvious, but to sit on another company's board and also have an ex-exec of that company sit on your board is absolutely tremendous. This is SOP when it comes to how the 'community' of CEO's and board members operate. The compensation nowhere near reflects performance, short term performance is rewarded over long term performance and CEO's practically write their own contracts.
LMAO. Very few CEO's fit this description (maybe Steve Jobs). Most know how to play 'the game'.
Edit: Totally forgot the spidey thread where he says he only hires union workers, when he can... WHICH IS IT SPIDEY.
The CEO got those cookies by navigating and leading his career to great heights and responsibility.
The tea partier got those cookies by keeping people or government from stealing them.
The union lazy fuckstain got his by forcing the other two to give up their "fair share" with intimidation, violence and brutality.
this
lmao, Steve Jobs? Yeah, right, learn your history. He worked his employees to death in the 80s.