Top CEOs leave 99% in the dust

[TenPenny]

Clearly, there are those on these forums that have the belief that all people should work 9-5, Monday-Friday and anyone that elects to assume risk on their capital, do so only with exposure to downside with no opportunity to enjoy upside. Somehow, they still yearn to believe in the proletarian utopia that has failed so miserably time after time - and never give any thought as to why these plutocracies have never yielded a successful result.

Clearly, there are some on this forum who don't have the foggiest idea of what business some posters are in, what they have for capital, what they get for return, and what they do for a living.

But, as with all things, some people prefer to believe everything they are dished out by the ruling class, without ever putting any thought into what the reality is.

 

[mentalfloss]

Clearly, there are some on this forum who don't have the foggiest idea of what business some posters are in, what they have for capital, what they get for return, and what they do for a living.

But, as with all things, some people prefer to believe everything they are dished out by the ruling class, without ever putting any thought into what the reality is.

It's really awkward how the crazy-commie argument still carries over to the next generation, lol

Maybe his next of kin won't think in such extremes.

 

[captain morgan]

Clearly, there are some on this forum who don't have the foggiest idea of what business some posters are in, what they have for capital, what they get for return, and what they do for a living.

Most folks on this forum don't really give a second thought to what other folks. It's no ones business but that of the individual.

But, as with all things, some people prefer to believe everything they are dished out by the ruling class, without ever putting any thought into what the reality is.

Think about putting a heaping spoonful of reality in your next coffee... The 'ruling class' as you so emphatically employ for self-pity purposes doesn't exist in a nation that punishes those for succeeding.

 

[DaSleeper]

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/canadian-politics/103970-top-ceos-leave-99-dust-7.html#post1528962

While the primary responsibility of boards is to ensure that the corporation's management is performing its job correctly, actually achieving this in practice can be difficult. In a number of corporate scandals of the 1990s, one notable feature revealed in subsequent investigations is that boards were not aware of the activities of the managers that they hired, nor the true financial state of the corporation. A number of factors may be involved in this tendency:

• Most boards largely rely on management to report information to them, thus allowing management to place the desired 'spin' on information, or even conceal or lie about the true state of a company.
• Boards of directors are part-time bodies, whose members meet only occasionally and may not know each other particularly well. This unfamiliarity can make it difficult for board members to question management.
• CEOs tend to be rather forceful personalities. In some cases, CEOs are accused of exercising too much influence over the company's board.
• Directors may not have the time or the skills required to understand the details of corporate business, allowing management to obscure problems.
• The same directors who appointed the present CEO oversee his or her performance. This makes it difficult for some directors to dispassionately evaluate the CEO's performance.
• Directors often feel that a judgment of a manager, particularly one who has performed well in the past, should be respected. This can be quite legitimate, but poses problems if the manager's judgment is indeed flawed.

Board of directors responsibilities


There was a pretty good paper written in 1993 which pins down the effect that unequal distribution has on the economy..

Hence, the long-run levels of income and wealth are positively related to the initial number of individuals who inherit more than g. Thus, an economy which is initially poor, ends up poor in the long run as well. An economy which is initially rich and its wealth is distributed among many, ends up rich. But an economy with a large amount of wealth, which is held by the few, ends up poor in the long run. If we would like to describe these results in more popular terms, we could say that a country has better growth prospects if it has a relatively larger middle class.

http://www.econ.brown.edu/fac/glenn_loury/louryhomepage/teaching/Ec%20237/Galor%20and%20Zeira%20%28RES%201993%29.pdf

Deja-vu


Deja-vu again

You're starting to repeat yourself:lol:

 

[captain morgan]

It's really awkward how the crazy-commie argument still carries over to the next generation, lol

Maybe his next of kin won't think in such extremes.

Probably not.... We don't have kids with our sisters

 

[JLM]

The problem with the extraordinary income gap that has developed in most of the market economies of the modern world is that it gives the lie to the strongest argument in favour of unregulated capitalism; and that is that all members of a society can benefit from economic growth. That is certainly not the case in the last few decades in which the incomes of the average citizen have essentially been frozen while those of the ultra-rich continue to increase out of all proportion to their contribution to society.

It also gives the lie to the argument that the ultra-rich are job creators as there has been no corresponding increase in the number of jobs created. High levels of unemployment continue to exist in many nations worldwide

At the same time as these inequities have developed citizens have been encouraged to continue spending in order to maintain economic momentum, however, with wages that barely match the rate of inflation the only way the average citizen can do this is to borrow, resulting in record levels of indebtedness.

There really are only a few solutions to this situation. One is to tax the incomes of the wealthy more heavily. Another would be to increase wages and benefits for the average wage earner or a combination of the two, but given the fact that most governments are in the hip pockets of the wealthy don't expect any change soon.

Those two ain't going to work, but I think perhaps the way things are going it will take care of itself. Every week we hear on the news how the average debt load of Canadians is on the rise, so sooner or later the rampant spending is going to stop, which is supporting many of these C.E.O.s and if they don't tone down the arrogance they will end up like Louis XVI. :lol::lol::lol: The day is quickly approaching when the average man on the street has had enough.

 

[captain morgan]

While the primary responsibility of boards is to ensure that the corporation's management is performing its job correctly, actually achieving this in practice can be difficult. In a number of corporate scandals of the 1990s, one notable feature revealed in subsequent investigations is that boards were not aware of the activities of the managers that they hired, nor the true financial state of the corporation. A number of factors may be involved in this tendency:

• Most boards largely rely on management to report information to them, thus allowing management to place the desired 'spin' on information, or even conceal or lie about the true state of a company.
• Boards of directors are part-time bodies, whose members meet only occasionally and may not know each other particularly well. This unfamiliarity can make it difficult for board members to question management.
• CEOs tend to be rather forceful personalities. In some cases, CEOs are accused of exercising too much influence over the company's board.
• Directors may not have the time or the skills required to understand the details of corporate business, allowing management to obscure problems.
• The same directors who appointed the present CEO oversee his or her performance. This makes it difficult for some directors to dispassionately evaluate the CEO's performance.
• Directors often feel that a judgment of a manager, particularly one who has performed well in the past, should be respected. This can be quite legitimate, but poses problems if the manager's judgment is indeed flawed.

Board of directors responsibilities


There was a pretty good paper written in 1993 which pins down the effect that unequal distribution has on the economy..

Hence, the long-run levels of income and wealth are positively related to the initial number of individuals who inherit more than g. Thus, an economy which is initially poor, ends up poor in the long run as well. An economy which is initially rich and its wealth is distributed among many, ends up rich. But an economy with a large amount of wealth, which is held by the few, ends up poor in the long run. If we would like to describe these results in more popular terms, we could say that a country has better growth prospects if it has a relatively larger middle class.

http://www.econ.brown.edu/fac/glenn...eaching/Ec 237/Galor and Zeira (RES 1993).pdf

Thanks for posting the responsibility of the BOD (again).... Just for fun, replace the word 'director' with foreman, shop steward or project manager... I think that you'll find the document is a one-size-fits-all statement.

 

[JLM]

How many CEOs make more than $1 Million/year?

ANY is a gross over abundance!

 

[captain morgan]

:lol::lol::lol: The day is quickly approaching when the average man on the street has had enough.

:lol:Had enough of what?.. Taking on more debt than they should or buying new 52' flat screens on credit everytime that a new model comes out?:lol:

 

[JLM]

:lol:Had enough of what?.. Taking on more debt than they should or buying new 52' flat screens on credit everytime that a new model comes out?:lol:

If you follow that money to the top you will find a C.E.O., so he could be in for an early "demise". :lol:

Clearly, there are those on these forums that have the belief that all people should work 9-5, Monday-Friday


Was that supposed to be the link that proved how a CEO could unilaterally change their own rate of pay or option package?

I'm still waiting for that little gem.

That is another mentality that has to go on the scrap pile. All our major cities are clogged up with traffic jams, cars sitting in one place for minutes at a time idling. We have to think about staggering hours of the work day, starting at 5 A.M. and ending at 9 P.M.

 

[captain morgan]

If you follow that money to the top you will find a C.E.O., so he could be in for an early "demise". :lol:

Does this CEO have a gun to your head, forcing you to over extend your credit or go into debt?

 

[TenPenny]

Most folks on this forum don't really give a second thought to what other folks. It's no ones business but that of the individual.

Clearly, you don't read your own posts.

 

[JLM]

Does this CEO have a gun to your head, forcing you to over extend your credit or go into debt?

Definitely not to my head, my c.c. debt is paid in full every month and basically I don't spend money I don't have. Actually I don't spend ANY money I don't have! Of course the C.E.O. isn't totally to blame, there are a lot of idiots who don't even think of buying something until they see it or someone else has it. That is why I find this "occupy Wall St." mentality so retarded, the protestors are supporting th people who they feel are ripping them off. :lol:

 

[captain morgan]

Clearly, you don't read your own posts.

Ya sure showed me... Was their a point to your post?

Definitely not to my head, my c.c. debt is paid in full every month and basically I don't spend money I don't have. Actually I don't spend ANY money I don't have! Of course the C.E.O. isn't totally to blame, there are a lot of idiots who don't even think of buying something until they see it or someone else has it. That is why I find this "occupy Wall St." mentality so retarded, the protestors are supporting th people who they feel are ripping them off. :lol:

Well, I guess that we're on the same page to a degree.

So, let me ask you - Is it better to 'vote with your dollars' (en mass) by not supporting a company that has a high paid CEO and thereby impact the company practices or should you demand legislation by the feds/prov putting a hard cap on what you can possibly make in total compensation.

Which option seems more practical to you?

 

[mentalfloss]

ANY is a gross over abundance!

I think a million bucks is a pretty good cap.

If you think about the fact that only 100,000 people on this planet make over $1M, that translates to 0.01% of the population. I can see why that figure is even lower than ours considering some of the less democratic states that are out there.

If we cap that a $1 Million, then the excess capital could go to lower income workers within the same organization. It wouldn't affect the organization's profit margins at all and it might make all those people want to spend more money and... support the economy.

 

[JLM]

Ya sure showed me... Was their a point to your post?



Well, I guess that we're on the same page to a degree.

So, let me ask you - Is it better to 'vote with your dollars' (en mass) by not supporting a company that has a high paid CEO and thereby impact the company practices or should you demand legislation by the feds/prov putting a hard cap on what you can possibly make in total compensation.

Which option seems more practical to you?

You sure ask the tough questions but probably neither. I'm going to be buying a new (newer) truck shortly, and of course at the extreme end of that transaction is a disgustingly fat C.E.O. and probably a disgustingly fat salesman, but I'll be doing some hard bargaining. I DO NOT believe in Gov't interfering with business, actually I do not believe in Gov't interfering with ANYTHING, their role is to enact legislation and act as a watch dog for the vulnerable. But before anything happens to the C.E.O.s the masses have a lot of smartening up to do. They scream poverty while plugging their faces at Big Macs. YA CAN'T SUCK AND BLOW AT THE SAME TIME.

 

[mentalfloss]

I DO NOT believe in Gov't interfering with business, actually I do not believe in Gov't interfering with ANYTHING, their role is to enact legislation and act as a watch dog for the vulnerable.

I do not believe in government interfering in individual social matters (unless those matters constitute a legitimate harm to others). However, in matters of the economy, government needs to step in when some aspect of the "free market" fails us. In our case, that failure began since Reaganomics and will continue to fail until people stop believing the ghosts of Milton Friedman.

 

[TenPenny]

You sure ask the tough questions but probably neither. I'm going to be buying a new (newer) truck shortly, and of course at the extreme end of that transaction is a disgustingly fat C.E.O. and probably a disgustingly fat salesman, but I'll be doing some hard bargaining.

Most car sales guys that I know don't make that much money, typically $100 to $200 per car sold.

If you don't want to reward companies that overpay their executives, consider a Toyota.
'at Toyota Motor (TM), meanwhile, Chairman Fujio Cho earned $1.5 million. CEO Akio Toyoda wasn't among the four executives who received more than $1.1 million'

Toyota didn't go bankrupt.

 

[JLM]

Most car sales guys that I know don't make that much money, typically $100 to $200 per car sold.

OK perhaps there is a good reason for the Fat C.E.O. to "slim down" a bit and share part of his "earnings". ( I guess income would be a better word.) :lol:

 

[captain morgan]

OK perhaps there is a good reason for the Fat C.E.O. to "slim down" a bit and share part of his "earnings". ( I guess income would be a better word.) :lol:

Here's a thought... How about some you rich retirees throw an extra 4 hundred to the sales guy yourself?

You fat-cat retirees got it made if you can run out and buy a new 4x4 every few years.