Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You can see on threads like these how conservatives are indoctrinated to carry water for the wealthy. Clearly, the conservative media will emphasize this message over all other (bashing minorities and gays, promoting religion and war, etc.) because at the end of the day, the concentration and accumulation of wealth is the cornerstone of conservatism.
LOL. This may be the funniest..........or most ignorant...........post I've seen in a while. Good work.
Nope. I'm not the one that quotes it so I have no desire to look it up.
And the author didn't actually say he was wrong. He said people misused his data to make it say what they want it to say. I misstated that.
Okay. Well, that's what I was looking for, so I guess I'll just go find it. I mean, it must be quoted a lot of places to bring down this big evil lie.
Quote:
And just base salary counts if that is what you want to measure. It is completely arbitrary to include it or not. What Liberals purposefully do is exclude stock options from the 1970s and include them now to make it look as if CEO pay has increased X amount of times more than other employees. It is a total lie.
If someone counts only salary, and not other forms of compensation, then that's pretty misleading. That's like "Hey look...our guy makes only $1 per year!! Don't pay attention to the $25 million in bonuses and stock options we gave him...that doesn't matter. He makes below poverty wages!!" So, why can I not find a single chart out there showing your version? Is every single source out there liberally-biased? I will keep looking.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 23 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,556 posts, read 16,542,682 times
Reputation: 6041
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
the CEO is the top manager at a corporation, they make all the decisions regarding financials and the direction of the company, they set the tone that others are supposed to follow. good CEOs are worth the money they are paid, take allan mullally for instance. ford hired him away from boeing, where he had finished turning that company around, and he has now turned ford around much faster than was thought. and he did it WITHOUT taking government bailout money, and without filing for bankruptcy.
That is because FORD completely restructured and reinvented themselves in 2006 and 2007, before the financial crisis even started.
They sold off assets( jaguar, Land Rover,Volvo and Tata.) before during and after the recession.
Is it supply and demand, or does the profession require more and or higher skills?
I just wanted to ask the shareholders on this forum why they are paying their CEOs more.
A closed door system. If you map the people on the boards of top companies, there are a lot of repeats. When a CEO flubs he leaves, and goes to another big company. With the growth of mutual funds and other big funds, the average investor has fewer votes, and in turn the managers aren't going to vote to pay the CEOs less, because they get to manage the money for the CEOs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioRules
Wealth cannot be concentrated and accumulated.
Anyone is capable of creating wealth.
If you create wealth you do not take wealth from me.
Liberals need to take an economics class with basic economic terms explained. Very basic.
Wall Street.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioRules
Because the numbers you are using are wrong. CEO pay has not increased that much. The study Liberals use to get those numbers was wrong. The author admitted it was wrong. He changed the way he defined compensation from the early 70s to the present for CEOs and did not do the same for anyone else.
That does not stop the haters though.
For this study, in the 1970s deferred compensation like 401Ks and stock options were not included in CEOs pay, only cash salary. Now we count deferred payments also and liberals pretend it is cash salary, which it is not. This falsely inflates a CEOs pay and creates a false enemy for liberals.
Whatever the board thinks their worth is what their value is. If you don't like what a CEO is getting paid then don't buy that stock or don't buy their product. Pretty simple stuff.
At least until you add in that a lot of companies get government subsidies, special tax treatment and bailouts e.g. autos and banks just to name a few so at least as far as your tax dollars go you don't get to choose.
Is it supply and demand, or does the profession require more and or higher skills?
I just wanted to ask the shareholders on this forum why they are paying their CEOs more.
Jeff Immelt costs me about 2 cents per share per DECADE on a share of GE stock.
In exchange, I get a guy that has managed to become a key partner with the Obama administration while getting boatloads of cash to fund all the wind turbines they make and various other legislation etc. that enriches GE....while at the same time keeping their taxes to a minimum by keeping profits off-shore and run through various tax havens.
All that while being bullet proof from most criticism from the likes of you because he is cozy with your guy.
Well played Mr. Immelt. Well played.
P.S. If you don't know how a CEO can help or hurt a stock price....you must have alzheimers since we've had tons and tons of threads around here where CEO's have gotten their companies in hot water due to stances on things like gays.
The part you are missing is that manufacturing has been off-shored and we bring in lots and lots of cheap labor. That lowers demand for workers and increases supply. Something both parties have been keenly involved in. Seriously, wth....haven't you ever heard of NAFTA?
Jeff Immelt costs me about 2 cents per share per DECADE on a share of GE stock.
In exchange, I get a guy that has managed to become a key partner with the Obama administration while getting boatloads of cash to fund all the wind turbines they make and various other legislation etc. that enriches GE....while at the same time keeping their taxes to a minimum by keeping profits off-shore and run through various tax havens.
All that while being bullet proof from most criticism from the likes of you because he is cozy with your guy.
Well played Mr. Immelt. Well played.
And, since GE has been performing SO WELL, he's totally worth it, right?
That is interesting, and I'd love to read up more on it. Do you have a source citing the author's dismissal of his own research?
I also find it incredibly hard to believe that every piece of information out there on the subject refers back to this one author's information. You would think that if CEO pay had not increased that much, there would be numerous graphs and supporting documentation out there. I have yet to find even one. Maybe you can enlighten us.
And no, just base salary does not count. If someone is given $60 million in stock options in one transaction, that counts.
It was based on this paper which never gives a source as to where they came up with the number for CEO/Worker ratios in America.
GE's gains are roughly 25% more than those of the S&P500 over the last 3 years.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
