MEGAPWNED :biggrin:
yes, one of moonie's blathering rambles megapwn's
I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation as to why it matters what a CEO makes and how it personally affects anyone. When I say reasonable, I mean something other than jealousy, envy, faux rage, or sympathy for the 99% (or whatever you want to call someone who is not a CEO).
Workers pay has decreased. CEO pay is increasing. CEOs clearly do not account for 100% of a company's work.
I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation as to why it matters what a CEO makes and how it personally affects anyone.[/B] When I say reasonable, I mean something other than jealousy, envy, faux rage, or sympathy for the 99% (or whatever you want to call someone who is not a CEO).
Are you telling me that CEO's pay increases have directly resulted in worker's pay decreases? Doubt it. Try again.
I listed some off in the OP.
He's clearly actually ignoring the facts presented due to preconceived notions that he hasn't bothered to bring up as a counter-point to them.
-snip-
But can anyone out there explain to me how this can be healthy for our country when these people have the economic power to tip the scales in the favor by greasing the palms of our Congressmen/woman who supposedly represent us??
Fern, are you referring to the common practice of largely paying CEO's via stock options, where they only profit on the increase of the stock share price from its reward date price?
In other words, if a CEO was awarded 1 million shares when hired, and lets pretend they all vested that day at $100.00 a share. Five years later, those shares are worth $95. If I understand correctly, the CEO would not make any money off of these shares since they are underwater. One of the key differences in stock options vs. stock grants.
CEO's usually aren't given stock shares outright IIRC, anyone please correct me if I am wrong. I am not defending the core issue of this thread, just trying to understand it better for now.
B u t , they create the wealth...they have to make too much money because they're the brightest and best at what they do, etc.
You make a great Republican
My salary went up 33% this year. I am not a CEO. Am I still evil?
My salary has gone up over 300% since I graduated from college almost 10 years ago. I guess I am just an asshole for continuing to make more and more money every year when there are still some out there making less and less. Maybe I should redistribute some of my salary to those that are making less and less to make things more "fair."
Workers pay has decreased. CEO pay is increasing. Companies are currently managing to turn near record profits. CEOs clearly do not account for 100% of a company's work.
Seems quite clear that its another bash the rich and shit on the guys making all the money thread. They have all the power since they have all the money booohoohooness.
I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation as to why it matters what a CEO makes and how it personally affects anyone. When I say reasonable, I mean something other than jealousy, envy, faux rage, or sympathy for the 99% (or whatever you want to call someone who is not a CEO).
Jesus how difficult is it for you communist to understand that in this country, people don't get paid because it's "fair", but because how much value/profit/business/revenue they can bring for the stockholders or owners. You answered your own question, companies make money, CEO gets paid.
Sorry to break it to you guys, this world is not fair, it's far from the utopia communists and socialist have been selling to people. You don't get nice salary and fancy life style for being the bottom 20%. You are not entitled to a job if you don't keep update your skill and go for a career in industries that are growing.
This may come as a shock to you, but under capitalism it's also very possible that people will NOT receive compensation commensurate to "how much value/profit/business/revenue they can bring". For example, many CEOs receive large amounts of money even when their companies lose money as a result of their poor decisions.
Also, many people get their jobs through nepotism or networking and other factors that are not truly merit-based. Many people are turned down for jobs for reasons that are not merit-based--wrong color, wrong religion, wrong sex, don't look like a supermodel, slightly overweight, too much grey hair, too old, wrong school, you name it.
You are living in a fantasy land if you naively believe that under a free market we would have a true meritocracy. Meritocracy is just a myth. A great many people who can produce value are unemployed or underemployed while many who don't produce much are employed in the jobs those unemployed people might otherwise have.
Even if employers were able to ignore superficiality and hire people on the merits, the market still wouldn't be 100% efficient or merit-based simply because no one can possess or process 100% of the market information. (It's impossible to sort through the 50,000 potential candidates for a job, many of whom never applied or knew about the opening, and pick the best one.)
So if shareholders (or board that represents shareholders), who should determine CEO pay? You? General public? Government? And you believe those people/entities making decision would be better?
You people love to criticize systems but cannot come up with alternatives that actually work. You cite European companies with large employee participation in the board but none of those companies perform well because they behave the same way as those companies with strong union presence - fvckup beyond believe. Those companies cannot make decisions because there are too many conflicting views.
You people are all the same, you believe somehow there is a utopia where everything works. But when you put theory into practice, having some big smart brother trying right everything, you get China/Russia with even more f-up system.
New finding CEO pay raises 28% this year alone.
When economic disparity is at an all time high isn't this even remotely disturbing to anyone in here?
Check out the Forb's list you will find the Bankers on Wall Street who almost brought the US Economy to it's knees being rewarded handily.
You will also see Oil Barons on the list whose companies get HUGE tax payer subsidization.
I also noticed the heads of Big Insurance on there too it's enough to really piss off anyone who realizes how much our Government is bought and Paid for
I am not anti-Corporation. But can anyone out there explain to me how this can be healthy for our country when these people have the economic power to tip the scales in the favor by greasing the palms of our Congressmen/woman who supposedly represent us??
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44893005/ns/business-forbes_com/#.TphVFNJVe-o
Could have fooled me just now with the diatribe about backroom deals and the good ol' boys networking going on. So you are not part of the "club". Cry me a river. Maybe if people worried more about what THEY are making instead of some other guys we wouldn't be in half the messes we are in. Then again, this seems to be exactly what the left is all about.
Someone is always gonna be making more, so what, deal with it. I am happy I don't have to make decisions that could affect the livelihoods of thousands of other people and as such, I get paid what I deserve.
And these are the people we are supposed to look up to, and maybe become like if we kiss their ring?There may be widespread fears of an impending recession running through the minds of most Americans, but there aren't among the country's richest citizens. Contrary to common assumption, many of the wealthiest Americans aren't worried about the weakening economy at all, they are actually excited about it.
To them, the crisis in the housing market, the recent slide in stock prices, and the general loss in purchasing power for millions of Americans have resulted in the thinning of the aristocratic ranks, or in other words, have decreased demand for the highest level of luxury living. Ironically, for the mega-rich, recession brings with it the ability to live well at a lower cost and with less of a hassle.
For the past eight years, I have been chronicling in documentary films the lives of the vastly rich and the role they play in the economy. As a member of the family that founded the Johnson and Johnson pharmaceutical company, I have been given unprecedented access to Whitneys, Vanderbilts, Forbeses, Gateses, Buffetts and Bloombergs. I have seen firsthand how many of these families run their businesses and I have watched them react to sudden shifts in the market and changing economic conditions. And now, with the threat of a recession looming on the horizon, I hear many of them saying-" Thank God, it's about time."
Paul Orfalea, for example, who is the founder of the Kinkos copy centers and a subject in my current film, The One Percent, used to like to tell me about a jet he owned called a Challenger. According to Paul it was the perfect plane for him, but he never got to use it because every time he tried to make arrangements to travel, he was told that the plane was actually chartered out to someone else. Originally Paul intended to make the plane available for charter only on occasion to help cover annual maintenance expenses, but he soon realized that there was so much demand for the plane and it was booked so far in advance that he was rarely able to fly in it himself. When I asked Paul what he thought the reason was behind the demand for his plane, he only had one culprit to blame -- the surging economy.
Another subject I recently interviewed blamed what he called mere "centa-millionaires" for the breakdown in exclusivity of his elitist world. For him, the overnight stars of the seven-year bull market not only overcrowded private air travel, but also drove up the price of high-end real estate. Buying a third home in the Hamptons became a burdensome experience for him. As far as he was concerned, there was just too much urgent demand, and although he could easily afford the asking prices, he found the heightened numbers personally offensive. He did assure me at the end of our conversation, however, that as soon as he sees the recession start to hit people, he'll be the first to buy.
While working on films about the vastly rich, I have seen countless displays of excessive privilege that serve as markers for the staggering inequality that plagues our country. Often times I have imagined that after recording scenes of wealthy prep-school students saying to less fortunate classmates, "Fuck you, I'm from New York. I could buy your family, piss off" that it couldn't get any worse. I believed that the distinction between The Two Americas that people commonly speak of was as pronounced as it could ever be.
But in recent days, watching the super-rich exuberantly anticipate a recession has forced me to realize that I was wrong to assume that the indicators of inequality wouldn't become more conspicuous. It appears that the opposite is true, that under the threat of hard times the mega-wealthy aren't feeling a greater responsibility to reflect upon the problems surrounding the growing wealth gap; they are, in fact, trying to fatten their wallets and further insulate their lifestyles.
I had hoped that foreboding economic circumstances would have caused the ultra-rich to think not just of themselves and increasing their own personal affluence. Unfortunately, however, too many of them lack concern and without this concern, the divisive imbalance will only worsen with recession.