The problem with our country summarized

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by HalloweenRun, Sep 15, 2012.

Page 4 of 11
  1. tigerchick46

    tigerchick46 Quick Learner

    "working class sluts" .......could I get a definition of this please
     
    tigerchick46, Sep 17, 2012
    #31
  2. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Proletarian strumpets
     
    martin, Sep 17, 2012
    #32
  3. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Hoss, I know that you don't realize it, but there are an awful lot of things that are beyond you.

    I can have an opinion on anything I wish, obviously. This is just another lame attempt to suppress discussion that bothers you. Not a chance.

    It's a deeply flawed comparison. let's make it more realistic to executive compensation. What if your bartender required you to tip him whatever he demanded if you wanted to drink there, rather than what you thought he was worth? And what if ever bar on the street had bartenders with the same policy? And what if everyone of theose guys actually worked for you?

    I wouldn't mind paying him 4 or even 8 times what it would cost me to pour a drink myself. But when he gets 600 times that cost, then I just might start complaining that compensation was too high to be justified.
     
    red55, Sep 17, 2012
    #33
  4. LSUpride123

    LSUpride123 PureBlood

    You can complain as you mentioned, but you are not forced to drink there.. You know, if everyone stopped going there the prices would go down and you would win.
     
    LSUpride123, Sep 17, 2012
    #34
  5. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Which corporate execs are forcing you pay them?

    I know you like to say you are a stockholder and therefore you are paying them, but thats not our concern. If you are dumb enough to invest in inefficient companies, we cannot help you.
     
    martin, Sep 17, 2012
    #35
  6. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    If there are companies with more reasonable exec salaries, perhaps you should invest in them. But maybe those companies are not as profitable for stockholders, in which case I wonder if maybe those execs at the more profitable companies really are overpaid.
     
    martin, Sep 17, 2012
    #36
  7. LSUsupaFan

    LSUsupaFan Founding Member

    This is silly because the bartender has no power to coerce anyone to pay him the tip he wants. It takes a meeting of the minds with a willing drinker. So if some CEO demands more than he is worth the BOD will laugh at him.

    If you don't like what the companies you own pay executives sell the stock. It is that simple.
     
    LSUsupaFan, Sep 17, 2012
    #37
  8. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    This gets at the point that red favors bailouts and then favors controlling the salaries of those bailed out companies, which is what I like to call totalitarianism.
     
    martin, Sep 17, 2012
    #38
  9. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Get real. You are saying that only the people who benefitted are germane? Stacking the deck, we call it.

    Of course it is my opinion and I am a stockholder and I have sat on a aboard. It is an opinion widely shared.

    Meaningless. What metrics. Be specific. You can't tie it to worker pay, corprorate profits, economic growth, or inflation. What metrics?

    Yes they do. Check it out. Google brings up many examples although it can be complicated by the proliferation of multinational corporations whose national affiliations, if any, change like chameleons.

    Innate Omniscience. And I read a lot.

    Why should I? You refused to give any examples to support you claims that Obama failed in foreign policy. But this one is easy. Just pick a company.

    David M. Zaslav, Discovery Communications
    Compensation: $52.4 million
    Corporate profits: +80%
    Stock gain/loss: -2%

    Michael S. Jeffries, Abercrombie & Fitch
    Compensation: $46.6 million
    Corporate profits: -16%
    Stock gain/loss: -7%

    Lloyd C. Blankfein, Goldman Sachs
    Compensation: $16.2 million
    Corporate profits: -67%
    Stock performance: -45%

    Amigo, you don't understand how corporations work if you imagine that.

    Corporate board members are part of the problem, since they set pay levels. Some simply do not know what they are doing. There really are no minimum qualifications to be a director. Most, however, are corporate executive themselves, cherrypicked by the CEO to be compliant yes men, sitting on each other's boards. They have failed in their duties to the stockholders. Few individual stockholders have enough percentage clout to do anything about this. Few owners even get to vote on executive compensation. The boards don't get enough outside advice on compensation and from multiple advisors. Golden parachutes are out of control.
     
    red55, Sep 17, 2012
    #39
  10. LSUsupaFan

    LSUsupaFan Founding Member

    Why don't you just not own those companies. And the issues you are bringing up are quite old, and no longer issues. Sarbanes-Oxley put lots of restrictions on boards. Greaater than half a board has to be made up of individuals who are independent of Corporate Management, and at least one of the independent board members has to be a financial expert. Shareholder approval hase been required for executive severence pay by SEC rule for almost two years, and most corporate governance constitutions have required it for 10 years. Golden parachutes have been greatly tightened in the last ten years and are increasingly uncommon.
     
    LSUsupaFan, Sep 17, 2012
    #40
Page 4 of 11

Share This Page