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.
Thats right, the company you work for. I am not a mathmetician but I know that there are CEO's earning 30M/yr and there are not only CEO's there are VP's and etc. Go ahead, tell us all (bound to be some math types out there) that that wouldn't add up to some serious scratch to make pay increases and additional hires with... how many 30K positions can you get out of 10M... 20M... what are you smoking... where can I get some?
H
First, a company will hire however many people they need to get the task done, so eliminating large CEO/VP salaries won't create more jobs. Companies aren't in the business of hiring people just to help them out.
So we're talking increasing salaries for current employees. Remove an executive who makes $30e6 and split it among 20e3 workers, each get an extra bonus of 1.5k/yr. Now I'm not saying I think any said CEO is worth 30M/yr. And as an employee I would like a chuck of that. Who would turn down any extra amount of money.
My point is, we can't make it seem like our country is in financial ruins because a handful of people are banking excessive coin. It seems like extrordinary amounts of money (for one person, it is) but when divided amount the masses, it doesn't equal the gap in pay we're seeing. Not even close.
Thats right, the company you work for. I am not a mathmetician but I know that there are CEO's earning 30M/yr and there are not only CEO's there are VP's and etc. Go ahead, tell us all (bound to be some math types out there) that that wouldn't add up to some serious scratch to make pay increases and additional hires with... how many 30K positions can you get out of 10M... 20M... what are you smoking... where can I get some?
H
If the CEO and executives are managing the company so that it turns a profit, which benefits not only the employees but the stockholders as well, there is nothing wrong with that. If the company is making billions on executive leadership decisions, those executives should be compensated accordingly.
Of course, we know the far Left would like to see NO profits for business, investors - just run your business in the red for the good of the people.
First, a company will hire however many people they need to get the task done, so eliminating large CEO/VP salaries won't create more jobs. Companies aren't in the business of hiring people just to help them out.
So we're talking increasing salaries for current employees. Remove an executive who makes $30e6 and split it among 20e3 workers, each get an extra bonus of 1.5k/yr. Now I'm not saying I think any said CEO is worth 30M/yr. And as an employee I would like a chuck of that. Who would turn down any extra amount of money.
My point is, we can't make it seem like our country is in financial ruins because a handful of people are banking excessive coin. It seems like extrordinary amounts of money (for one person, it is) but when divided amount the masses, it doesn't equal the gap in pay we're seeing. Not even close.
Well, they should be. Any country that criminalizes idleness as much as this one should make it a requirement that there is work for those who will work. There aren't just CEO's and VP's making the big bucks as I said there is an entire Executive Branch of up to a dozen and more individuals all of whom are making $!M/yr and more at a large firm. That is many thousands of 30K positions per firm. Millions of people unemployed and those that are working are being returned to turn of the century work conditions. Unpaid overtime, eliminated bathroom breaks, loss of pension, loss of benefits. Wage slavery basically. And the companies are teetering on bankruptcy anyway. Employing advertising firms and other lobbyists to the tune of 100's of millions to make them look worthy of investor dollars when they are not. We should all turn a blind eye to it why? If these companies were going to stay around awhile like they did in the old days, maybe. Nowadays they cut and run as soon as the fit hits the shan and leave workers without work, investors with worthless paper and all you can hear is the pop, pop, pop of Golden Parachutes inflating as the Top Tier do their own bailout. You can try to show me brown and tell me its green but I am not color blind. Even if I were, I can smell. Nice try though.
And I would like be be able to move things with my mind, or defy the laws of physics. I gave up on these notions around age ten, and decided living in reality made more sense.
How many times does communism need to fail before people will stop thinking it works?
If the CEO and executives are managing the company so that it turns a profit, which benefits not only the employees but the stockholders as well, there is nothing wrong with that. If the company is making billions on executive leadership decisions, those executives should be compensated accordingly.
Of course, we know the far Left would like to see NO profits for business, investors - just run your business in the red for the good of the people.
Bulldookey! There is definitely something wrong with a company paying out all of its profit to the Executive Branch and shareholders. Where is the investment in the company itself? What about infrastructure, expansion, improvement? All the executive's do is prop the company image up so its image is competitive while they gut it of assets and flee the carcass when the fit.... Nothing is wrong with that? Who said anything about running businesses in the red? Why must competent, honest, management be synonymous with failure? That is the mentality of the right. If it were actually successful, i.e. the present way of doing business was resulting in companies that didn't merge at the drop of a hostile takeover and a healthy employment climate, etc. Do you think the left would be complaining? Would anyone be listening if we did??? Try again. There is everything wrong with the way the Corporations of the present age comport themselves financially. It is unsustainable BTW.
And I would like be be able to move things with my mind, or defy the laws of physics. I gave up on these notions around age ten, and decided living in reality made more sense.
How many times does communism need to fail before people will stop thinking it works?
You should know better than to try those kinds of arguments with me. Communist Dictatorships fail, sometimes, Cuba is still going... Tell me, are any of the Scandinavian countries are on the brink of meltdown? How would the Berlin Wall have come down if people gave up on notions of a Unified Germany (one of the better places on earth to be btw) as a silly, childish, notion.
This is not a tax increase. You know that the Medicare Part D legislation included tax free payments to corporations so they would continue prescription drug coverage for retirees, right? And that major corporations received billions of those tax free taxpayer dollars. You also know this subsidy was eventually going to end and the health reform bill ended it sooner.
Kaiser did a survey of corporations back in 2005 and found:
FOUR IN FIVE LARGE FIRMS TO MAINTAIN RETIREE DRUG COVERAGE AND ACCEPT MEDICARE SUBSIDIES IN 2006, BUT ARE LESS CERTAIN ABOUT FUTURE STRATEGY
Firms accepting the retiree drug subsidy in 2006 are less certain about whether they will continue to take this approach in future years. Among those firms that will accept the subsidy in 2006, about four in five (82%) say that they are "very" or "somewhat" likely to accept the subsidy again in 2007. Looking ahead to 2010, only half (50%) say they are likely to maintain coverage and accept the subsidy, while 22% say they are unlikely to do so, and 28% say they do not know.
"Most employers are accepting government subsidies and taking a wait and see attitude on the drug law," Kaiser Family Foundation President and CEO Drew E. Altman said. "The widespread dropping of drug benefits that some had feared has been averted so far as businesses figure out what their longer-term response will be."
My own company sent me a letter last year about changes in retiree coverage.
The administration has to get in front of this and explain what is happening and the history before it takes on a life of it's own similar to "death panels."
Why must competent, honest, management be synonymous with failure? That is the mentality of the right. If it were actually successful, i.e. the present way of doing business was resulting in companies that didn't merge at the drop of a hostile takeover and a healthy employment climate, etc. Do you think the left would be complaining?
Ok, you are stating that every corporation in the country operates under some of the skeevy tatics we've seen in recent years with Enron and the likes. This is complete bs. Some bad apples sure, but many (most) corporations have been mitigating failure and expanding/contracting where need be, finding new opportunities and investing. All decisions by these 'crooks' as you've defined them. And said decisions are the things that have kept the corporations alive with thousands of jobs. Ford didn't need a bailout, Google has a new venture everyday, GE builds everything.
And to answer your question in bold, yes, I think the left will complain until they are the only ones with money/power and make all the decisions for every American cause 'they know best'.
Communist Dictatorships fail, sometimes, Cuba is still going... Tell me, are any of the Scandinavian countries are on the brink of meltdown?
Cuba is your aspiration of a well run economy?!?! Whats the standard of living in those Scandinavian countries? (Retorical question) This is absurd. People attempt a 100 mile ocean voyage on sticks to get out of Cuba. What your spouting is no longer idealism, it is just incorrect at this point.
Thats right, the company you work for. I am not a mathmetician but I know that there are CEO's earning 30M/yr and there are not only CEO's there are VP's and etc. Go ahead, tell us all (bound to be some math types out there) that that wouldn't add up to some serious scratch to make pay increases and additional hires with... how many 30K positions can you get out of 10M... 20M... what are you smoking... where can I get some?
H
The CEO of John Deere is Robert W. Lane - he ranks #10 on the Forbes 2009 list of highest paid CEOs. He was paid $61.3 million in total compensation on that report and $142.4 million over 5 years.
The CEO of Catarpillar is John Hunt - he ranks a lowly 125. His total compensation was only $10.99 million and only $36.88 million for 5 years.
The Forbes list is interactive and can be sorted in many different ways. It provides some interesting information about these CEOs.
The average salary at John Deere is $37,000. Here's some survey data
[url=http://www.simplyhired.com/a/salary/search/q-john+deere]John Deere Salaries | Simply Hired[/url]
Caterpillar pays much better at $47,000 average
[url=http://www.simplyhired.com/a/salary/search/q-caterpillar]Caterpillar Salaries | Simply Hired[/url]
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.
