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.
Are you attempting to make some nature of a point or address some factors ?
My point is typically executive comp isn't hurting the avg worker's pocketbook or in other terms the elimination of exec comp all together wouldn't help the avg worker
Point taken. The larger issue is the shareholder's compensation, or return on capital. Not the execs. At that level, the numbers do make a meaningful difference to the average employee, in the thousands of dollars a year.
Shareholder's comp or said another way owners of the company. Convience the owners there is a better way and it will get done. Costco pays it's employees well so it's not impossible even in retail
My point is typically executive comp isn't hurting the avg worker's pocketbook or in other terms the elimination of exec comp all together wouldn't help the avg worker
How many man hours and how much material and substance is used to generate enough product to pay the executive. In simple terms, how many bottles of coca cola must be produced and sold to cover executive compensation? how much does the increase in retail cost of the individual units of coca cola have to increase to offset these figures.
What results is product quality loss, consumed material and goods, workers benefits cut, laid off employees, closed plants and a host of other things the 10's upon 10's of millions of dollars year after year, paid not only to the CEO but the executive team along with the millions upon millions of shares they are given. All of this impact share cost at some level of share distributions and certainly the over all business model.
It takes money from the worker as well as the consumer in every way imaginable.
this money they are paid, does not come out of thin air, it is money on the books which is equated as expenses. There is no such thing as 'this money not coming from some place", and that place is the expense sheet of the company.
Last edited by Chance and Change; 10-28-2014 at 05:56 PM..
How many man hours and how much material and substance is used to generate enough product to pay the executive. In simple terms, how many bottles of coca cola must be produced and sold to cover executive compensation?
How many man hours, materials, substance and blah blah blah would it take for KO to pay every employee 5000.00 more a year? I'm not really sure what the point of your question is because its numbers game that's not going to work in your favor most of the time.
At 100,000 employees it would be 500,000,000 in base comp plus benefits annually. At 17% margins a very rough calculation would be an additional 3billion plus in annual sales.
Shareholder's comp or said another way owners of the company. Convience the owners there is a better way and it will get done. Costco pays it's employees well so it's not impossible even in retail
Costco's business model also calls for half of the man power. They are a warehouse style retailer. If Walmart or Target had a SKU volume that supported 1/2 the man power they could afford to pay double their avg hourly wage of 9-10 an hour.
Costco's business model also calls for half of the man power. They are a warehouse style retailer. If Walmart or Target had a SKU volume that supported 1/2 the man power they could afford to pay double their avg hourly wage of 9-10 an hour.
Costco crushes Sam's Club if you compare them directly, it's kinda hard to do because most of sams numbers are combined with Walmart but they beat them across the board
How many man hours, materials, substance and blah blah blah would it take for KO to pay every employee 5000.00 more a year? I'm not really sure what the point of your question is because its numbers game that's not going to work in your favor most of the time.
At 100,000 employees it would be 500,000,000 in base comp plus benefits annually. At 17% margins a very rough calculation would be an additional 3billion plus in annual sales.
You selectively and totally overlooked many factors of debt acquisition, over expansion and the other variables I mentioned which erode away corporate profits all created by POOR Performance CEO decisions.
You came up with the $5000 dollar figure, my point is simple. The expense it cost to pay these executives at this level is not justifiable under the terms condition and acts and actions which continues to lead to Systemic corporate failure and corporate collapses by their decisions and their actions.
Many companies should have no debt which exceed the ratio to support stability, that's why they raised money by selling stock. Long term investors are not in it for record breaking stock ticker numbers daily, they are in it to earn a return over a long term of supporting the companies stability and function. The Wealthiest Man in the World has stated this over and over and he has the wealth to support his premise, he has never over-leveraged the company he has, and their debt to equity ratio is what drive up the price over the long term of his stock. Berkshire Hathaway. It is SOLID.
Last edited by Chance and Change; 10-28-2014 at 06:13 PM..
In 1914, Henry Ford started an industrial revolution by more than "doubling wages" to $5 a day—a move that helped build the U.S. middle class and the modern economy.
Quote:
In 1913, to help meet the growing demand for the Model T, Henry Ford turned his attention to improving the manufacturing processes. The business model Ford developed—production on a grand scale, performed by well-paid workers—spread throughout the world and became the manufacturing standard for everything from vacuum sweepers to cars, and more.
That level of integrity is void in these Executive Leaders of today, they are in it for themselves, and no matter if the company is liquidated, sold off or sold in pieces, their goal is their personal profit gain at the expense of anything and everything else. Today, they are constructive destroyers of Industry for their personal gain and ego notoriety of wealth accumulation and status for themselves. We have a long list of destroyed companies with CEO who walked away with a kings ransom and no conscience concern or moral accountability for the demiseof lives, communities, cities and the nations economic industrial generators of which they destroyed.
Last edited by Chance and Change; 10-28-2014 at 06:26 PM..
You selectively and totally overlooked many factors of debt acquisition, over expansion and the other variables I mentioned which erode away corporate profits all created by POOR Performance CEO decisions.
You came up with the $5000 dollar figure, my point is simple. The expense it cost to pay these executives at this level is not justifiable under the terms condition and acts and actions which continues to lead to Systemic corporate failure and corporate collapses by their decisions and their actions.
Many companies should have no debt which exceed the ratio to support stability, that's why they raised money by selling stock. Long term investors are not in it for record breaking stock ticker numbers daily, they are in it to earn a return over a long term of supporting the companies stability and function. The Wealthiest Man in the World has stated this over and over and he has the wealth to support his premise, he has never over-leveraged the company he has, and their debt to equity ratio is what drive up the price over the long term of his stock. Berkshire Hathaway. It is SOLID.
It didn't selectively pick anything, that horrible Tldr post had what I ended up quoting bolded. I'm not sure what an acceptable debt to equity ratio is to you but brka employs leverage and numerous company they invest in do the same.
It didn't selectively pick anything, that horrible Tldr post had what I ended up quoting bolded. I'm not sure what an acceptable debt to equity ratio is to you but brka employs leverage and numerous company they invest in do the same.
It has nothing to do with me because it is not a personal matter of mine as to what an acceptable debt to equity ratio is, That's why companies have a CFO who has an army of accountants, his job is to know, what the debt to equity ratio that is relative to the respective business for the stability and soundness of the business.
We now have "Stress Test for Banks" which is "specifically" related to debt to equity ratio and a % of reserves to absorb unplanned and eventful subsequence.
We need the "Stress Test" for Public Traded companies. Not over-paid poor decision making CEO chasing a stock ticker.
If you go back and look at Lincoln Saving and Loans, it was due to laxed regulation that allowed them to exceed ratios and overly encumbering their reserves which proved to be insufficient. I'm quite certain whatever the debt to equity ratio, they have accountants who can determine what that ration should be to protect the stability and solvency of the company.
We should have learned a great deal as a society from the Arthur Anderson Accounting scandal, which overly encumbered reserves and ate deeply into the principal of even the fixed asset valuation, Result = COLLAPSE and the parts consumed by others.
Last edited by Chance and Change; 10-28-2014 at 06:56 PM..
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.
