Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:20:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2013 12:52:35 GMT -5
Jobs at all levels are lost to automation and increasing computerization as it becomes economically viable. They aren't all low skill jobs. Surgeons use computer-aided surgery to perform surgeries quicker. That means they make less per surgery. When I graduated from college one of the jobs I interviewed for involved robots used in painting cars in manufacturering lines. Auto jobs were fairly well-paid back in the 1980s. Not raising minimum wage is not going to stop automation and computerization from affecting jobs at all wage levels. Every year computers get faster and chips can get smaller. Freezing wages wouldn't affect that in the least. You are not understanding. First, net jobs are NOT lost to automation. Jobs just change. And they require more skill. So people with no skill are left behind. Hence the fact that total compensation for the poor has been flat, while it has grown for everyone else. Also, when a company looks at replacing workers with technology, there is basically an equating of compter to worker. In other words, if a computer costs the equivalent of $10/hr and a worker is $8/hr, they go with the worker. If it's the other way around, they go with the computer. It's nowhere near that simply from a financial analysis standpoint, but I think you get my point. Technology prices are always going down. Make labor costs suddenly jump by 30%, and suddenly technology is much cheaper.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 11, 2013 13:19:12 GMT -5
We'll see. I think the way districts are mapped in the House, the mean there sees a Republican advantage and a burgeoning strength of fairly hardline Republicans to boot. if you are talking about gerrymandering, i think that it actually makes the GOP more vulnerable. i know that is counter-intuitive. i didn't believe it three months ago. but i believe it now.The way the Senate pans out,the mood of non-partisans in the center dictates the trend. A lot depends on how the incumbent is viewed; it's a truism that elections are generally referenda on incumbents' performance. To the extent that Democratic Senators are identified with Obamacare, and Obamacare is identified with overreach, incompetence, and pocketbook pain, they're going to have a problem. again, i think we have about a 50/50 chance of taking back the Senate in 2014. not that it is very meaningful. it really isn't. the Democrats will filibuster everything. I can see potential for 2014 to be something of a single-issue election, and to the extent that the potential is realized, it's going to tilt the balance of power toward the GOP. 2016 will be your "regression to the mean," I think. perhaps. i think the GOP faces a much larger problem in 2016. particularly if Hillary runs.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 11, 2013 13:38:41 GMT -5
I am curious how you mean that, and perhaps what you mean. More vulnerable because it skews the presidential primary process? because it makes the party less relevant to the mainstream? i wrote about this on another thread. the way the GOP gerrymandered in 2010 maximized their number of seats. the way they did it is to group as many DEMOCRATS into safe districts as possible. the idea that they did this on the GOP side is a myth, and would have been counterproductive. the result was that the average Democrat won by something like 40%, but the average GOP member won by 13%. now, let's look at election dynamics. since 2012, there has been about a 6% shift to the Democrats. that means that about ONE QUARTER of the GOP seats are now vulnerable. whereas NONE of the Democratic ones are. let's assume that it shifts 12% the other way, giving the GOP a +6% straw poll. that would make NONE of the GOP seats more vulnerable, but it would only put 8% of the Democrats seats in play. in other words, the gerrymandering made the GOP seats about 3x as vulnerable as the Democratic seats in the HOUSE. NOTE: for obvious reasons this does NOT apply in the Senate.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 11, 2013 13:46:29 GMT -5
I didn't mean gerrymandering, anyway. The vast majority of Virginia districts, for example, voted for Ken Cuccinelli over Terry McAuliffe. Something like thirty of the fifty states have majority-Republican delegations in the House of Representatives. Democrats win statewide and nationwide races by racking up massive margins in urban districts to compensate for defeat in the rest of the state or nation. The contested 2000 Presidential election saw George Bush win the electoral college but lose the popular vote by more than half a million votes showed a county breakdown that looks like this: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/2000prescountymap2.PNGThat's what a closely contested election looks like: most of the country is red. The bits that are blue are very densely populated, but they're not filling too many Congressional districts, even though districts are allocated proportional to populations. Gerrrymandering plays a role in shoring up the already absurd strength of some representatives like the disgraced Charlie Rangel. The Voting Rights Act contributes considerably with its majority-minority requirements. But a lot of the reason for Republican strength in the House - and the State legislatures - has to do with the growing urban/rural split.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 11, 2013 14:00:36 GMT -5
Larry Sabato currently rates 9 seats as toss-ups - 5 are held by Democrats (2 in Arizona districts that supported Romney in 2012) and 4 by Republicans (all four in 2012 Obama districts). Republicans held 10 of the 12 Virginia State House seats they defended last week in Obama territory.
20 seats are deemed to be leaning Democratic a year out from the election; of these, 6 represent Romneyland, and 1 is a Republican incumbent.
15 are leaning Republican, including 4 Obamaland representatives.
Including likely Republican seats, 32 are considered unsafe; Obama took the vote in 2012 in 12 of these, and three of them may not be represented by the incumbent in 2014.
Including likely Democratic seats, 32 are considered unsafe; Obama lost the vote in 2012 in 10 of these, and one of them may not be represented by the incumbent in 2014.
The generic Congressional vote looks now about how it did in 2009 at this time. This looks like mid-single-digit gains for Democrats in the House to me.
***
Charlie Cook breaks it down slightly differently.
He sees 199 safe Republican seats, 31 likely or leaning their way, 4 GOP incumbents in toss-up territory, 10 Dem incumbents in toss-up territory, 26 likely or leaning Dem, and 165 safe Democratic seats. That looks like it could even see Republicans gaining low-single-digits.
22 vulnerable Democrats in Cook's analysis are freshmen; 7 Republicans are. Two of the Dem seats Cook calls contestable at this point are open or vacant; five of the GOP seats are.
It's a strong position for the GOP to be in.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 11, 2013 14:03:01 GMT -5
Ah, thank you dj, that is interesting. I understand the demographic shift to the Democrats, but my impression was that it was in urban and suburban areas. I am not aware that it is increasing Republican vulnerability in the more rural "red" districts. they carved up the map to maximize their numbers. in a GOOD year for them, it benefits them hugely. 2010 was that kind of year. 2012 was a more typical year, and they lost seats. i don't expect 2014 to be much better, in terms of the House. the Democrats need 17 seats to put Pelosi back in charge. that is TOTALLY possible, as i view it. particularly if we have another shutdown closer to that election.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,779
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Nov 11, 2013 20:17:46 GMT -5
"I agree, although I take some issue in the abstract with the notion that any working American is paid 'badly' as a subset of the world's workforce. "
In general I disagree as most workers in countries that get paid less than us usually have lesser housing costs. I don't want to join a race to the bottom either. I'd prefer emulating countries like Germany and Singapore for example who have fairly low unemployment and relatively good living conditions for most of their people.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,779
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Nov 11, 2013 20:34:50 GMT -5
I understand, but I disagree. I'm working seasonal retail and just did my training entirely on computer. While we have the concept of unskilled labor, no person is actually truly without skill. Jobs do get eliminated. Jobs get created. Some even change but I don't think in the case automation replaces a job you can legitimately argue the job changes and requires more skill, because it doesn't. That job is gone.
Compensation for the poor has been flat because employers are making it so. IMO it has very little to do with actual value, but the ease that employers feel they have in replacing workers. There's been movement to putting more and more of the profits to the CEOs and upper management in this country for more than a decade. If you do that, you have to lessen the compensation to others that might have shared the profit. The workers at the bottom of an organization have been a popular target for that.
Skill too in my opinion sometimes is more about perception than anything else. There are some areas like players in big league sports where you can see why some are paid more than others and other times its more about who can make it rain more than anything else. Actors that make big money get that money because the success or failure of their films gets attributed to them. No name actors with just as good or better acting skills don't make the money, because its about the bottom line not the actual quality of the acting. Likewise sales people in the right kind of sales make big money often more than a engineer with a PhD or even a computer scientist with his first patent. Skill is not an absolute nor does it guarantee a certain income. Because there has been a glut of lawyers, paralegals have lost pay even though they are skilled and some lawyers even though they are skilled are taking paralegal jobs. And then there's things like NOLO that lessen the demand for legal services from live expensive lawyers in general. Lawyers did not become less skilled, but the landscape that employed them has changed quite a bit in the last decade.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 11, 2013 21:39:37 GMT -5
I see where you're coming from but wages, in my view, aren't about the costs the worker must meet outside of work. Wages are about the value the employer gets from the worker in work, and in particular the marginal utility for that employer of employing that worker by comparison with employing another or doing without.
I don't think the costs of housing soared beyond the means of Americans to support, and wages fought to catch up, y'know?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 11, 2013 22:42:09 GMT -5
I see where you're coming from but wages, in my view, aren't about the costs the worker must meet outside of work. Wages are about the value the employer gets from the worker in work, and in particular the marginal utility for that employer of employing that worker by comparison with employing another or doing without. I don't think the costs of housing soared beyond the means of Americans to support, and wages fought to catch up, y'know? Housing prices soared out of reach of the median wage earner in many areas of the country due to the flood of government backed mortgages and other government programs which created an artificial demand for housing- driving up the price. Absent government interference in the market, housing prices would have tracked with wages. We've had nearly 40 years of a completely skewed and out of touch with genuine market forces housing market. And we're still on the same path- with impossibly low interest rates, and every program and whacky government incentive in a desperate attempt to re-inflate the housing bubble, or at least not let it deflate too rapidly, or completely correct. The result will be still more housing pain down the road.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:20:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2013 8:30:28 GMT -5
I understand, but I disagree. I'm working seasonal retail and just did my training entirely on computer. While we have the concept of unskilled labor, no person is actually truly without skill. Jobs do get eliminated. Jobs get created. Some even change but I don't think in the case automation replaces a job you can legitimately argue the job changes and requires more skill, because it doesn't. That job is gone. Compensation for the poor has been flat because employers are making it so. IMO it has very little to do with actual value, but the ease that employers feel they have in replacing workers. There's been movement to putting more and more of the profits to the CEOs and upper management in this country for more than a decade. If you do that, you have to lessen the compensation to others that might have shared the profit. The workers at the bottom of an organization have been a popular target for that. Skill too in my opinion sometimes is more about perception than anything else. There are some areas like players in big league sports where you can see why some are paid more than others and other times its more about who can make it rain more than anything else. Actors that make big money get that money because the success or failure of their films gets attributed to them. No name actors with just as good or better acting skills don't make the money, because its about the bottom line not the actual quality of the acting. Likewise sales people in the right kind of sales make big money often more than a engineer with a PhD or even a computer scientist with his first patent. Skill is not an absolute nor does it guarantee a certain income. Because there has been a glut of lawyers, paralegals have lost pay even though they are skilled and some lawyers even though they are skilled are taking paralegal jobs. And then there's things like NOLO that lessen the demand for legal services from live expensive lawyers in general. Lawyers did not become less skilled, but the landscape that employed them has changed quite a bit in the last decade. The key word is NET. Technology destroyed farming jobs and those jobs were replaced with blue collar jobs. Factory jobs have been replaced by technology, but that has only freed up labor to work other jobs (high tech, service, etc). At no point have technological advancements ever resulted in sustained increases in unemployment. In fact, except at the lowest skill levels, they have always resulted in the creation of newer, higher paying jobs and a rise in the standard of living. Your comment about putting more and more profits to management and CEOs also has no basis in reality. If the money that is paid to an employee such as an executive, it is not even profit in the first place. Second, executive pay is only a teeny tiny fraction of what is paid to the rank and file. To suggest that they have to take money away from workers to pay executives better makes no sense. Walmart could probably triple their executives' pay with a 1% pay cut to the rest of its employees. So unless Walmart executives are earning $1B/yr each (they aren't), the notion that they have cut store worker pay to raise executive pay makes absolutely no sense at all. They could double executive pay with virtually zero impact on profitability. Wages are set by supply and demand. Supply and demand is of course impacted by many things such as technology, gov't policies, etc. And that is basically what you just said in the following paragraph when you said it's not just skill that determines how much someone is paid, but rather the full supply/demand dynamic.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 12, 2013 8:59:33 GMT -5
True. And furthermore, executive pay can be addressed by the share owners if they view it as negatively impacting their return on equity. They can vote differently, or they can cast the ultimate vote- and sell. What I've always wondered about is that even if its true that the executives want more money for themselves, and even if you accept the premise that more for the executives comes out of money rightfully due the rank and file employee- wouldn't it also logically be true that if the rank and file want more, it would come out of money potentially rightfully due the executives, or due the share owners? Why is it 'greed' when the executives want more, but it's not greed if the rank and file want more? And why is it so often suggested that in order to get bonuses, raises, and retirement packages, CEO pay should be tied to performance, but the rank and file so frequently demand raises without offering more value in exchange? If CEO's shouldn't be automatically entitled to an increase in compensation or other benefits, why should the rank and file? I'll tell you why- and it's actually due to the simplistically incorrect worldview of the left and populists who think that there is a finite pile of resources for the whole of humanity, and whenever someone takes a dollar from the pile, someone else must lose a dollar. They do not see an expanding pile, let alone an infinite pile in spite of the fact that examples abound to show that the economy can expand without limitation. The best example is the iPhone- the first generation 2G iPhone wasn't introduced to the world until 2007. Since that time Apple's iPhone business alone- excluding all other products including the iPads, iPods, and their entire line of laptop and desktop computers- is bigger than all of MicroSoft. In fact, the iPhone as a stand-alone business would also be bigger than Coca-Cola, McDonald's, Caterpillar, Pfizer, Merck, Disney, DuPont, Visa, and even Goldman Sachs. Source: 9to5mac.com/2013/09/26/iphone-as-standalone-business-would-be-bigger-than-microsoft-coca-cola-mcdonalds-more/ Income is earned, but wealth is created. This is why wage earners are miffed, dismayed, and just outright confused by CEO compensation. They don't understand that much of the "compensation" isn't paid as 'earnings' the way a line worker trades hours for dollars, or paid for piecework. CEO compensation is often tied to the value they create through their leadership and direction. They don't show up, put in their 8 or 10 hours and go home. They have responsibility, they have to lead- it's a very different set of requirements. Employees are often disconnected from the big picture. They don't think about it much at all- mostly because they're not required to, and because it wouldn't make much of a difference, if any, if they did. For example, an employee working 16 hour days on the line might think that their "hard work and dedication" should be rewarded not just with overtime, but with advancement and raises or other benefits. But for the CEO who works for the shareowners, the employee working 16 hour days is a liability and his job is to get those hours, which are a cost-center for the company, down, if not eliminated. So, while many employees are thinking they deserve more, the business is trying to figure out how to get costs down, and employees (labor) is the biggest line item cost in just about every business. A good business is going to figure out how to extract more value from the employee for the same or lower costs for the long term health of the business- to make more money, to reinvest this money back into the business, to pay shareowners so they don't bail, to beat competitors and stay in business. Employees are only thinking about themselves, and thinking about how to drive UP costs. The attitude of many employees is that the business NEEDS them, but the more they cost, the less they're needed. Because it only makes sense to have employees if there's a value proposition that makes sense.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:20:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2013 9:38:44 GMT -5
Exactly. Shareholders would be morons if they simply allowed companies wastefully direct profits to executives. And doubly moronic if they allowed companies to pay employees below-market wages. The only way paying below-market wages could possibly work would be if all companies were in collusion, which is, of course, illegal.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:20:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2013 10:56:08 GMT -5
being in management for 25+ years, people make or break every business (bad employees kill business/good employees bring in business)
you surround yourself with talented people that "care"
you try to hire the best, train them, and then the hardest part (keep them)
in order to do so, you have to pay competitively.....
but that doesnt mean you have to overpay for labor
it is a fine line that most managers and owners walk on a annual basis
paying enough to keep the employees happy and productive, without overpaying and hurting the bottom line
and in some cases....you cant reach a consensus with an employee......and they leave for "greener pastures"
this has been, is, and always will be the toughest part of my job......
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 12, 2013 11:00:22 GMT -5
Exactly. Shareholders would be morons if they simply allowed companies wastefully direct profits to executives. well, they f-ing do it ALL THE TIME. so, i guess they are morons*And doubly moronic if they allowed companies to pay employees below-market wages. The only way paying below-market wages could possibly work would be if all companies were in collusion, which is, of course, illegal. if you create the market, then you can pay whatever wage you want. *the way you put it is not quite how it works. the shareholders elect the BOD, and the BOD sets salaries. US BODS are totally corrupt, so there is no real choice. i will read and address Paul's post later today, if time allows.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:20:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2013 11:12:07 GMT -5
DJ, Can you back up what you're saying with data? Not cherry-picked examples, but representative data. I don't think what you're saying is correct at all.
I think the failure to select good leaders has more to do with the fact that people are inherently bad at selecting good leaders. Studies have shown this.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 12, 2013 12:52:40 GMT -5
DJ, Can you back up what you're saying with data? Not cherry-picked examples, but representative data. I don't think what you're saying is correct at all. i can back up everything i say here. you know that. but what, specifically, are you having difficulty with?I think the failure to select good leaders has more to do with the fact that people are inherently bad at selecting good leaders. Studies have shown this. not following what that has to do with paying people too much, but ok.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,779
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Nov 12, 2013 12:54:27 GMT -5
Right, but I'd argue the net jobs available has more to do with demand and the number of workers/consumers than it does with technology. Net jobs have dropped during the recession even though technology continued to advance. The decrease in net jobs is why unemployment is so high and the projected path to being where we were net job wise is so slow and low that it is expected it will be years before we end up where we were. Technology doesn't create the jobs. Employers do. And employers sometimes choose to hire people when they shouldn't and in the current environment there are studies that show employers aren't willing to commit to hiring because they believe they can buy a candidate that probably doesn't exist. Businesses are made up of people and just like people they often act in ways against their self interest. It is the rare employer that calculates the money they are losing by not hiring for an advertised position. Like men on internet dating sites, they see all these potential riches in front of them and hold out for what they believe they deserve. I believe part of the reason unemployment is still as high as it is, is simply because quite a few employers are not hiring people for jobs for literally years because they are looking for someone who may not exist and they don't take into account the cost they are incurring to the business by not hiring someone and training them.
And it depends on your point of view whether you are freed up to do something else or merely cast adrift to find your way and educate yourself on your own dime. Fewer farming jobs didn't automagically endow farmers of various ages and educations the ability to get employed in a new field. What's missing from most discussions on jobs like this is how to get people re-educated and re-employed in a cost effective, reasonable fashion. Right now, employers choosing to educate their employees is seriously out of fashion. Most want to buy what they want on the open market, ignoring the fact if everyone does the same, no one is actually replenishing or increasing the stock of employees in that field. Plus if they are into right-sizing, i.e. frequent layoffs, it lessens the desireablity of that field to workers who might be able to come up with money to train themselves into that field. In other words, the US employer policies are now poised to make us less and less competitive on the world stage and US employees less and less trained unless they have the funds to do so on their own.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 12, 2013 12:55:23 GMT -5
Dj - you said that, generally enough to be considered to happen "all the time," shareholders direct company profits wastefully into excessive executive pay deals.
Here To Help.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 12, 2013 12:55:38 GMT -5
True. And furthermore, executive pay can be addressed by the share owners if they view it as negatively impacting their return on equity. . there are two problems with this statement. the first is that there are rarely any real alternatives to admin for shareholders. candidates are balloted by a pool from the board, typically, so careful screening ensures that only candidates that run with the pack are allowed to contest. the second is that shareholders have really low participation in elections- even lower than in public elections- so very few people end up contributing to these decisions (as meaningless as they are).
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 12, 2013 12:56:35 GMT -5
Dj - you said that, generally enough to be considered to happen "all the time," shareholders direct company profits wastefully into excessive executive pay deals. Here To Help. thanks. i will wait for ib, tho.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:20:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2013 12:57:10 GMT -5
You said shareholders allow companies to waste money by paying executives excessively. And you said BODs are generally corrupt. I was wanting to know how you came to these conclusions.
As for the comment about picking bad leaders, I thought you were talking about the numerous examples of executives who are handsomely compensated even as complete failures.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 12, 2013 12:58:58 GMT -5
Income is earned, but wealth is created. This is why wage earners are miffed, dismayed, and just outright confused by CEO compensation. . wealth is also destroyed. and when it is, does the CEO pay a high price for it?
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 12, 2013 13:02:10 GMT -5
Dj - you said that, generally enough to be considered to happen "all the time," shareholders direct company profits wastefully into excessive executive pay deals. Here To Help. thanks. i will wait for ib, tho. The implication that either myself or ib lack the comprehension skills to parse a very straightforward claim of yours is amusing I will wait for his substantially different restatement also I am just playing here. ETA: It's a good thing we waited.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 12, 2013 13:09:33 GMT -5
You said shareholders allow companies to waste money by paying executives excessively. And you said BODs are generally corrupt. I was wanting to know how you came to these conclusions. first it is necessary for me to define "corruption". i would define "corruption" as acquiescing to bad fiscal policy out of historical practice and nepotism. second- we have to define the scope of the argument, which is the F500. i don't want to engage in an argument about how the bottom 99% of CEO's get paid, because i think it is totally reasonable. what the top 500 pay is, however, totally outrageous. next, we would have to define "excessive". i would guess this will be the greatest source of conflict between us on this issue. i would define it as "outside of global standards of compensation for the position". in other words, if we compare CEO pay in the US to those of other 1st world nations like Germany, we should see parity. what we see is nothing of the kind. the average CEO pay in Europe for top level executives. is about $7m/year. this compares to $14.3M in the US. shareholders are being taken for $7M/year. if you want me to give some specific examples of FAIR compensation, i would point to CostCo. but i have a meeting in 1 minute, so i have to go.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 12, 2013 13:10:14 GMT -5
thanks. i will wait for ib, tho. The implication that either myself or ib lack the comprehension skills to parse a very straightforward claim of yours is amusing you read too much into posts, my friend. i simply have limited time today. g'day.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,779
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Nov 12, 2013 13:11:41 GMT -5
DJ, that's when you layoff some people, perhaps sell off a business entity or two, and get the board to reward you with a bonus for all your tough decisions. IMO CEOs don't necessarily create wealth especially if they are not the creators and founders of the company. I have mixed feelings about Larry Ellison CEO and creator of Oracle, but he did create an entire industry or business. Some CEOs may or may not create value as employees of the company they are the head of. It is because of accounting rules, the CEO is often going to get a bigger bonus than perhaps a scientist that created the silicon based transistor. A creation that revolutionized transistors and paved the way for computers as we know them now. Yet the money goes to those who are in position to get it. It really isn't IMHO about deservability. Just like location, location, location, Its about position, position position and perception, perception, perception. The rewards go to those in the postion to receive them and often those perceived to deserve them. You can find many examples in history of people who were under-paid for the contributions because a person or company had the money and power to exploit them. Great movie on the guy who created the intermittent windshield wiper is just one example of the thousands littering human history.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 12, 2013 13:15:10 GMT -5
True. And furthermore, executive pay can be addressed by the share owners if they view it as negatively impacting their return on equity. . there are two problems with this statement. the first is that there are rarely any real alternatives to admin for shareholders. candidates are balloted by a pool from the board, typically, so careful screening ensures that only candidates that run with the pack are allowed to contest. the second is that shareholders have really low participation in elections- even lower than in public elections- so very few people end up contributing to these decisions (as meaningless as they are). Share price is the most important vote. If the 'insiders' could will the value of the shares to $100,000 they would. They can't. Because the market does actually play a role.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 12, 2013 13:16:33 GMT -5
DJ, that's when you layoff some people, perhaps sell off a business entity or two, and get the board to reward you with a bonus for all your tough decisions. IMO CEOs don't necessarily create wealth especially if they are not the creators and founders of the company. I have mixed feelings about Larry Ellison CEO and creator of Oracle, but he did create an entire industry or business. Some CEOs may or may not create value as employees of the company they are the head of. It is because of accounting rules, the CEO is often going to get a bigger bonus than perhaps a scientist that created the silicon based transistor. A creation that revolutionized transistors and paved the way for computers as we know them now. Yet the money goes to those who are in position to get it. It really isn't IMHO about deservability. Just like location, location, location, Its about position, position position and perception, perception, perception. The rewards go to those in the postion to receive them and often those perceived to deserve them. You can find many examples in history of people who were under-paid for the contributions because a person or company had the money and power to exploit them. Great movie on the guy who created the intermittent windshield wiper is just one example of the thousands littering human history. No one is underpaid. They are paid precisely what they're worth- which is the place where what they're offered, and what they will accept meet.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:20:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2013 13:23:32 GMT -5
You said shareholders allow companies to waste money by paying executives excessively. And you said BODs are generally corrupt. I was wanting to know how you came to these conclusions. first it is necessary for me to define "corruption". i would define "corruption" as acquiescing to bad fiscal policy out of historical practice and nepotism. second- we have to define the scope of the argument, which is the F500. i don't want to engage in an argument about how the bottom 99% of CEO's get paid, because i think it is totally reasonable. what the top 500 pay is, however, totally outrageous. next, we would have to define "excessive". i would guess this will be the greatest source of conflict between us on this issue. i would define it as "outside of global standards of compensation for the position". in other words, if we compare CEO pay in the US to those of other 1st world nations like Germany, we should see parity. what we see is nothing of the kind. the average CEO pay in Europe for top level executives. is about $7m/year. this compares to $14.3M in the US. shareholders are being taken for $7M/year. if you want me to give some specific examples of FAIR compensation, i would point to CostCo. but i have a meeting in 1 minute, so i have to go. You are making way too many assumptions. For example, you assumed that the supply/demand dynamics for a European executive are identical as for a US executive, you assumed a European executive is fairly paid, that they have equal responsibilities, etc. Heck, US wages overall are higher than in Europe, so you simply cannot equate one to the other. I couldn't even begin to define "fair".
|
|