Jump to content

"If You’ve Got A Business — You Didn’t Build That"


Shady

Recommended Posts

I beg to differ, there is a market on CEO salaries, it's just a mind boggling some of money market because of the intense competition for management.
Nonsense. There are lots of people qualified to be CEOs. They get high salaries because there are few positions available so their is less pressure to contain costs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 558
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Nonsense. There are lots of people qualified to be CEOs. They get high salaries because there are few positions available so their is less pressure to contain costs.

And it has nothing to do with companies competing hand over fist with compensation to find and retain said CEO? There is competition in both the CEO labour market and with the firms hiring them. The big dogs get the best CEOs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it has nothing to do with companies competing hand over fist with compensation to find and retain said CEO?
The CEO salary market works like this:

A certain percentage of CEOs control the company. They set their own salaries.

These salaries are made public knowledge.

CEOs at other companies use these "insider" salaries to justify increased pay.

The last scenario is helped by "compensation committees" that are stacked with CEOs from other companies who have a vested interest in inflating the market value for CEO pay.

It is largely a scam designed to benefit a select group of insiders who have the right connections.

Don't get me wrong. It takes skill to be a good CEO but it also takes skill be a good engineer or a good artist. IOW - there are plenty of people with the necessary skills so there is no real justification for the current salary levels other than companies can afford to pay them.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CEO salary market works like this.

A certain percentage of CEOs control the company. They set their own salaries.

These salaries are made public knowledge.

CEOs at other companies use these "insider" salaries to justify increased pay.

The last scenario is helped by "compensation committees" that are stacked with CEOs from other companies who have a vested interest in inflating the market value for CEO pay.

It is largely a scam designed to benefit a select group of insiders who have the right connections.

Don't get me wrong. It takes skill to be a good CEO but it also takes skill be a good engineer or a good artist. IOW - there are plenty of people with the necessary skills so there is no real justification for the current salary levels other than companies can afford to pay them.

It's still a market because for smaller companies without those financial resources, it allows them to train CEOs for the big boys. It's a market some would deem unfair, however it still a market and a competitive one at that. People trying to get to the inside, a fierce competition to keep those on the inside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a market some would deem unfair, however it still a market and a competitive one at that.
There is lots of competition the get CEO jobs. This competition should mean lower salaries but it does not because the market is rigged. If you want evidence of this rigging look at what happens to CEOs if they are forced to leave their company. In most cases it will take years before they land a similar position (if they ever do). IOW - CEOs can't simply quit their jobs and find a better one. So companies should be able to pay a lot less because CEOs have no place to go. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it is a false choice. People who earn 10 million a year would simply demand more money to compensate them for the higher taxes. So income disparity is unchanged but companies are a less profitable.

Demand more money for what exactly? You think the people raking in $100 million per year are shopkeepers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul Krugman has a complex explanation involving liquidity traps, and why it's bad that I have $100 tax cut. The Nobel Committee may have given him a Prize (as they did Obama) but I'm still not sure of his argument.
Your ad hominem involving the Nobel selection process is not only a fallacy for being an ad hominem, but it's not even a good one. The Nobel Peace Prize and it's selection is something entirely different and separate from the economics prize. There is absolutely no relation between the Peace Prize selection and the economics prize selection.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are saving it in banks for others to borrow, investing it in companies helping them grow and provide jobs

Is that why our government needed to bailout help create emergency liquidity for the banks and study after study has come out to show that cutting the top tax rate has done nothing to stimulate the economy and create jobs?

You know what creates jobs? Giving money to people that need more disposable income. When they're buying things, the big guys are making money. Not only that but the big guys know where and when to invest in more infrastructure and jobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what creates jobs? Giving money to people that need more disposable income. When they're buying things, the big guys are making money. Not only that but the big guys know where and when to invest in more infrastructure and jobs.
A theory that falls apart in a globalized economy because those people are buying goods made in China or elsewhere. This reduces, if not eliminates, any stimulus effect on the local economy. And even if there is boost that convinces big companies to invest they invest it overseas. If you want companies to invest here then the cost of doing business must be reduced here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A theory that falls apart in a globalized economy because those people are buying goods made in China or elsewhere. This reduces, if not eliminates, any stimulus effect on the local economy. And even if there is boost that convinces big companies to invest they invest it overseas. If you want companies to invest here then the cost of doing business must be reduced here.

It doesn't work that way either. The same applies for business in the global economy. How many times have we seen in the news companies taking our money and pissing off overseas or somewhere else with it?

I believe we need to be putting money in people's hands so they can decide what companies should be making through their aggregate purchasing habits. However, we also need to be levelling the manufacturing playing field by harshly penalizing companies through taxes, duties, levies, whatever for importing goods from impoverished labour markets that our people can't possibly compete with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at the silly socialist taking a national-capitalist stance. The most dangerous thing that ever happened to society was the free-marketers convincing us that this free-market should be completely global. It can be international only insofar as the competing/trading nations have a similar standard of living as us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe we need to be putting money in people's hands so they can decide what companies should be making through their aggregate purchasing habits.
Fine - as long as they are not doing it with money borrowed by the government.
However, we also need to be levelling the manufacturing playing field by harshly penalizing companies through taxes, duties, levies, whatever for importing goods from impoverished labour markets that our people can't possibly compete with.
So you really want to bring on another Great Depression?

http://www.voxeu.org/article/protectionist-temptation-lessons-great-depression-today

While many aspects of the Great Depression continue to be debated, there is all-but-universal agreement that the adoption of restrictive trade policies was destructive and counterproductive and that similarly succumbing to protectionism in our current slump should be avoided at all cost. Lacking other instruments with which to support economic activity, governments erected tariff and nontariff barriers to trade in a desperate effort to direct spending to merchandise produced at home rather than abroad. But with other governments responding in kind, the distribution of demand across countries remained unchanged at the end of this round of global tariff hikes. The main effect was to destroy trade which, despite the economic recovery in most countries after 1933, failed to reach its 1929 peak, as measured by volume, by the end of the decade (Figure 1). The benefits of comparative advantage were lost. Recrimination over beggar-thy-neighbour trade policies made it more difficult to agree on other measures to halt the slump.
Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't work that way either. The same applies for business in the global economy. How many times have we seen in the news companies taking our money and pissing off overseas or somewhere else with it?

I believe we need to be putting money in people's hands so they can decide what companies should be making through their aggregate purchasing habits. However, we also need to be levelling the manufacturing playing field by harshly penalizing companies through taxes, duties, levies, whatever for importing goods from impoverished labour markets that our people can't possibly compete with.

What do you mean "our money"? The money they made and earned that isn't taxed at the rates you guys want it at. I love it you guys complain when corporations improve the lives of the developing world and are efficient at it by paying salaries to individuals and building infrastructure, yet play the pity card when we see starving children in south Asia and demand the government fork over tax dollars to tin pot governments to "help" them. That's beyond hypocrisy. Global poverty is dropping, and your complaining about it.

Corporations are putting money in people's hands, people all over the world who didn't have money to begin with to buy products designed by us, and to use our natural resources.

You can't punish companies harshly like that because they'll say screw this place, I'll set up headquarters in Australia and focus 100% on the Asian market and those greedy north Americans can milk a dry cow.

So I take it you want the impoverished world to stay poor so you guys can keep spinning your tires. Unfortunately for you guys CEOs that run the corporations are smart enough to realize that by providing more people with income, there is more people to buy their products. Why in the name of all that is holy would a corporation want to see poverty? A corporation wants it's customers to have as much money as possible to buy their products, and you guys think the only way developing countries should have an income is through UNICEF, charity, or foreign govt aid. Wow!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why in the name of all that is holy would a corporation want to see poverty?

Well, most of them depend on low-wage labour. Without scarcity, they aren't going to be able to pay low wages; and they aren't going to have labour pool that is insecure financially, and so feels dependent on a crappy job no matter how they are treated.

It's not a conspiracy by evildoers. Corporations are run by ordinary human beings, and there are indeed benefits that derive from these entities. The bad things that happen are wholly institutional matters.

But to get sensitive about it, and presume there are no problems and no issues, verges on lunacy.

Edited by bleeding heart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, most of them depend on low-wage labour. Without scarcity, they aren't going to be able to pay low wages; and they aren't going to have labour pool that is insecure financially, and so feels dependent on a crappy job no matter how they are treated.

It's not a conspiracy by evildoers. Corporations are run by ordinary human beings, and there are indeed benefits that derive from these entities. The bad things that happen are wholly institutional matters.

But to get sensitive about it, and presume there are no problems and no issues, verges on lunacy.

And you have to realize that the free market is always working to equilibrium. If goods are mass produced at a price range which workers can afford, are they in fact poor? We have millions of people all over the world with smart phones with Internet access. I'm pretty sure the phone companies want to see each and every one of those customers with money in their pocket in order to buy those phones. However at the same time the company that hired them wants to pay them as little as possible so that they are able to stay working and are still productive. As more and more companies employ workers, the labor pool goes down and firms have to pay more to secure employment. It's through that mechanism that a country becomes rich.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh nooooos! Mitt to Olympians... "You didn't get here solely on your own"

Willard Romney - 2002 opening ceremonies at the winter Olympics
: "You Olympians, however, know you didn't get here solely on your own power,” said Romney, who on Friday will attend the Opening Ceremonies of this year’s Summer Olympics. “For most of you, loving parents, sisters or brothers, encouraged your hopes, coaches guided, communities built venues in order to organize competitions. All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them. We’ve already cheered the Olympians, let’s also cheer the parents, coaches, and communities. All right!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is he talking about....community and co-operation?

Frigging commie.

We are atomized individuals seeking personal gain. And nothing else.

Not only that we also learned today that the self made business man in Romney's commercial actually received tax breaks and money from the government to grow his business. You know the business he built all on his own with no help from anyone well any except the government which was Obama's point. Thanks Mitt for making Obama's point again again and again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only that we also learned today that the self made business man in Romney's commercial actually received tax breaks and money from the government to grow his business. You know the business he built all on his own with no help from anyone well any except the government which was Obama's point. Thanks Mitt for making Obama's point again again and again.

No, Obama's point is to give the bulk of credit for somebody's work to the government. He's the usual big government liberal. Somebody's individual hard work and good ideas are diminished according to him. As if well run successful businesses pop out if thin air due to the mere existence of a road. He's crapped on the private sector for four years now, which is one of the reasons it's in such poor shape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, Obama's point is to give the bulk of credit for somebody's work to the government. He's the usual big government liberal. Somebody's individual hard work and good ideas are diminished according to him. As if well run successful businesses pop out if thin air due to the mere existence of a road. He's crapped on the private sector for four years now, which is one of the reasons it's in such poor shape.

Nope sorry Shady. Even your highly edited quote doesn't make it sound like you want to sell it. Obama's team is so good they are taking down arguments based on points they never made and are making you look the fool. Keep trying to make Obama say whatever you want in your head you still have to sell it.

But did you hear Romney's point? He says the bulk of credit for Olympic athletes work should go to the government. I heard it right out of his mouth. Poor Poor Shady supporting the guy he hates saying the things he hates.

Edited by punked
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...