The First 100 days

LongestHorn said:
What if it did?
Click to expand...
If it did, he should be interviewed by a Republican partisan from the FBI while not under oath, and then criticized by that same goofy partisan while being let off the hook because he clearly did not have bad intent while breaking the law. Then you should vote for him for President.
 
Voters like this guy at the bottom are how we get Reps like Maxine Waters and She-Jack in the Congress

Should we mandate a minimum IQ for voting?
How about serving in the Congress?


D2Mr9AFXQAAmNKx.png
 
militaryhorn said:
From reading a lot of your posts, I gather you do pretty good, as far as pay goes. With this assumption I would also assume that you supervise a few people at work.

How about we start with you. Take the amount you make and divide it evenly for each employee under you and give them a raise. So, basically if five people are under you and you make $100,000 and they make $60,000, then you can give them a $6,500 raise and you all will be making around $67,000 a year.

Oh, it doesn't matter if they earned it or not, just do it because it is fair.
Click to expand...

Not sure how to address this. You appear to be under the misperception that I'd support socislism in its purest form. Furthermore, it presupposes that I'd be against making less for my employees to make more. I've done exactly that on multiple occasions and have no issue with directs' compensation equaling my own, if earned. Afterall, the success I've enjoyed as a leader is dependent on my collective team.

My economic situation can best be described as fortunate, enough to own properties and not have to take out loans for my 3 sons public college education. I've experienced firsthand, and yes benefited, from compensation structures skewed towards executives. Taxation laws also greatly adavantage the person with money.

Everyone is not equal but if this trend below continues it forces the government into a welfare state to placate the masses.

In the 1950s, a typical CEO made 20 times the salary of his or her average worker. Last year, CEO pay at an S&P 500 Index firm soared to an average of 361 times more than the average rank-and-file worker, or pay of $13,940,000 a year.
Click to expand...

CEO pay isn't the only problem but rather the gap between management (especially executive) and individual contributors.
 
I35, you don't get it. These guys learn in school that the market doesn't work very well. As political science students and lawyers they think they can look at calculus equations and come up with how the economy works. It's the reason we have so many economical problems these days.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Not sure how to address this. You appear to be under the misperception that I'd support socislism in its purest form. Furthermore, it presupposes that I'd be against making less for my employees to make more. I've done exactly that on multiple occasions and have no issue with directs' compensation equaling my own, if earned. Afterall, the success I've enjoyed as a leader is dependent on my collective team.

My economic situation can best be described as fortunate, enough to own properties and not have to take out loans for my 3 sons public college education. I've experienced firsthand, and yes benefited, from compensation structures skewed towards executives. Taxation laws also greatly adavantage the person with money.

Everyone is not equal but if this trend below continues it forces the government into a welfare state to placate the masses.



CEO pay isn't the only problem but rather the gap between management (especially executive) and individual contributors.
Click to expand...
I really wasn't expecting you to agree with anything I stated or asked of you. My overall point is that everyone in America has a choice when it comes to their job and pay.

If you think you deserve better pay or benefits, then you go to the boss and discuss. If you want what they are offering then you can say thanks and go back to work. Or, you can say, to yourself, that I deserve better treatment and go look for another job that pays more or has better work environment or benefits.

It is totally up to YOU the worker. But, many believe that it not how it should work. They want all these benefits and pay and to keep doing what they are doing because they like where they live or the job they have.

Prime example is me, I got fed up with the military and I was in the fortunate position to be able to retire. I went searching for jobs, found one and submitted my retirement papers.

I also like my current job but not the constant time away from home so I am setting myself up to move within the company for a set schedule and probably lower pay. I might have to move in the process to but I know that going in and willingly to do it.

I agree with you about CEO compensation especially the payments made to them whom have failed to produce but their contract stipulates certain buyouts if fired. Not much you or I can do about that and I don't agree that government has a place to make that change.

The only way that would change is to stop putting the same people on many different boards and hiring someone from another board they are both on to be an executive in this other company that they are a member of the board.
 
So how do you break up the corrupt relationship between boards and CEOs? Is there any way to actually do it without empowering the government to take more away from everybody?
 
Monahorns said:
So how do you break up the corrupt relationship between boards and CEOs? Is there any way to actually do it without empowering the government to take more away from everybody?
Click to expand...

Hold the BoD accountable for their fiduciary responsibilities. The problem is that most BoD's are made up of CEOs of other companies. Most are simply rubber stamping information fed to them by the CEO, Compensation Committee, and Investor Relations.

Honestly, I'm not sure why CEOs are allowed to sit on the BoD of other companies. Most other employees would be in trouble for co-employment issues.
 
I35 said:
How about the market value dictate what we are worth? Instead of government telling us what everyone is worth.
Click to expand...


There is a serious disconnect in the market. The Board of Directors approves senior executive pay. Who make up the lionshare of board seats? Sr. Executives. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that is damping wage growth for individual contributor roles.
 
Monahorns said:
So how do you break up the corrupt relationship between boards and CEOs? Is there any way to actually do it without empowering the government to take more away from everybody?
Click to expand...
Yes. The government doesn't have to dictate the pay scale but they can put rules in place that require more transparency and allow the shareholders direct ability to vote on the parameters of compensation packages. They could make it so that each board member has to publicly express their votes on exec compensation so that they actually have to answer for their votes.
 
Seattle Husker said:
There is a serious disconnect in the market. The Board of Directors approves senior executive pay. Who make up the lionshare of board seats? Sr. Executives. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that is damping wage growth for individual contributor roles.
Click to expand...
Actually most companies have a compensation committee made of outside independent board members.
 
Honestly, I'm not sure why CEOs are allowed to sit on the BoD of other companies. Most other employees would be in trouble for co-employment issues
Click to expand...

So who should sit on the Boards? Employee representatives? Random people? I would be uncomfortable with government reps. Maybe city government or chamber of commerce.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Everyone is not equal but if this trend below continues it forces the government into a welfare state to placate the masses.

CEO pay isn't the only problem but rather the gap between management (especially executive) and individual contributors.
Click to expand...

You mindlessly repeat this, but you can never explain why one person making more money than another is a problem.

Hint: it's not a problem. It is a ruse to get votes for Libs similar to their strategy of dividing people along gender and racial lines to keep their homies on the reservation. What is a problem is the liberal promises of free health care, college education, and any number of other pie-in-the-sky government boondoggles that can never be paid for.

What is important is that everyone has the opportunity to increase their income. When that opportunity is missing, we all have a problem. For good examples, take a look at the socialist countries your party wants to mimic.
 
iatrogenic said:
You mindlessly repeat this, but you can never explain why one person making more money than another is a problem.

Hint: it's not a problem. It is a ruse to get votes for Libs similar to their strategy of dividing people along gender and racial lines to keep their homies on the reservation. What is a problem is the liberal promises of free health care, college education, and any number of other pie-in-the-sky government boondoggles that can never be paid for.

What is important is that everyone has the opportunity to increase their income. When that opportunity is missing, we all have a problem. For good examples, take a look at the socialist countries your party wants to mimic.
Click to expand...
your description of the issue is not accurate. No one is saying that differences in pay is a problem. We are saying that many CEOs are compensated in a wildly inordinate way relative to their actual impact on the business and it is largely due to inner circle you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours mentality in the executive circles. You will never convince me that someone needs to be paid $30MM plus in order to get out of bed and go to work. Not to mention that the real work is done by the legions of common folks below them on the payroll. There is no doubt that the CEO's are there to make the big calls and their experience and judgement are worth something...BUT it has gotten WAY out of hand.
 
Actually, the Lib, and now you, are saying pay difference is a problem. I know the Lib can’t explain why that is a problem, but since you agree and are much more intelligent than the Lib, please explain it to me.

Maybe you could use pro sports to help explain how differences in salaries are unjustified.
 
You can be conservative and still criticize CEO pay for just the reasons SeattleHusker says. They sweetheart deals whether perform or not based on the circle jerk of corporate boards. Breaking that up brings actual market forces BACK into play. Right there is a bit of rigging the system.
 
Monahorns said:
You can be conservative and still criticize CEO pay for just the reasons SeattleHusker says. They sweetheart deals whether perform or not based on the circle jerk of corporate boards. Breaking that up brings actual market forces BACK into play. Right there is a bit of rigging the system.
Click to expand...

And let's remember who often sits on corporate boards. Link.

Spoiler alert - it's politicians.
 
Why don't we fix all the corruption and waste in government before we start in on CEO pay? Those guys actually work for us and should be the ones called to account. Unless you are a stockholder, how much the CEO of Three Initial Corp. (TIC) makes is none of your business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top