Jump to content

#occupywallstreet Or Bourbonstreet Or Sesamestreet


Recommended Posts

oh come on, scrams new yorker post was humorous! and he's part jew so it's completely legal.
ADL on the case...
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 386
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[Jerry voice] I think he converted for the jokes!So I'm going to try to convince these nitwits to start an Occupy K Street movement instead. Who's with me?
Do you have a sign in your office window overlooking the protesters saying, I AM THE 1%
Link to post
Share on other sites
Fantastic Forbes article on CEO pay by a Private InvestorWhy America's Highest Paid CEOs Are Insanely Overpaid
it is amazing. i can't even comprehend how much is being made. the only i am sure of is that government regulation of it and taxing it at stupid rates will only make the problems worse not better. it is obvious to me that i either pay my people waaaaay to much or don't charge near enough!
Link to post
Share on other sites

like, when it came to light that apple had backdated options for jobs, that was a legitimate reason to be angry. hard to say whether they were properly punished (as far as stock price goes), but I'm guessing not.at the end of the day, I really don't think stock options are such a bad way to pay a CEO. if I were in charge of such things, my CEO would earn 90/10 options vs. base pay. people like to claim that stock values are inherently a short-term measure, but there are plenty of studies out there that show the opposite to be true. I think my pay structure would please the author of that article, because the CEO would inherently act more 'entrepreneurial' in that scenario.but on the whole, the market just doesn't care what the CEO is making, so long as they beat the analysts every quarter. I can't really think of a good reason for why it's really this guy's place to shit all over mckesson, because clearly there are lots of people who are happy to own their stock. shit, I own them via my S&P 500 ETF, though someday I'll shy away from using indexes when I have more money in play.

Link to post
Share on other sites
like, when it came to light that apple had backdated options for jobs, that was a legitimate reason to be angry. hard to say whether they were properly punished (as far as stock price goes), but I'm guessing not.at the end of the day, I really don't think stock options are such a bad way to pay a CEO. if I were in charge of such things, my CEO would earn 90/10 options vs. base pay. people like to claim that stock values are inherently a short-term measure, but there are plenty of studies out there that show the opposite to be true. I think my pay structure would please the author of that article, because the CEO would inherently act more 'entrepreneurial' in that scenario.but on the whole, the market just doesn't care what the CEO is making, so long as they beat the analysts every quarter. I can't really think of a good reason for why it's really this guy's place to shit all over mckesson, because clearly there are lots of people who are happy to own their stock. shit, I own them via my S&P 500 ETF, though someday I'll shy away from using indexes when I have more money in play.
I think you have to look at it not as much from a stock market perspective as a societal one.The CEO "Class" has by gaming the compensation system and colluding to raise CEO rates across the board taken more of the economic pie for themselves without actually adding the value to the economy as a whole.People freak out when Unions raise compensation rates through their collective actions but that's exactly what's happening with CEO compensation as the author of that article points out by them using comepensation consultants and comparables and compliant boards where the members of the boards also have self interest in keeping CEO pay rates going through the roof for their own benefits.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you have to look at it not as much from a stock market perspective as a societal one.The CEO "Class" has by gaming the compensation system and colluding to raise CEO rates across the board taken more of the economic pie for themselves without actually adding the value to the economy as a whole.People freak out when Unions raise compensation rates through their collective actions but that's exactly what's happening with CEO compensation as the author of that article points out by them using comepensation consultants and comparables and compliant boards where the members of the boards also have self interest in keeping CEO pay rates going through the roof for their own benefits.
the only reason I care about CEO compensation is if I'm forced to pick a mutual fund that features one of these companies with idiotic compensation structures in its portfolio. I look at that as more of a regulatory failing, i.e. I should be able to choose my investments with much more precision, regardless of the advisor/clown/snake oil salesman my company has running the show.I never freaked out about unions, either. the way I see it, the markets are just a way for everyone to hitch a ride on the technology train. as long as companies with shitty compensation structures can be punished in the marketplace and the markets (not able to be in a monopolistic position, not having captive investors), I don't care too much about how they are run. I mean, are you trying to say we need to regulate compensation? I think that's one of the worst ways to address the problem.I forgot to mention, yes, I agree that having a super-wealthy class of people is not a good thing. maybe it can be addressed with a new, mega-rich tax bracket and progressive rates, I don't know. my personal experience... my ability to contribute to society is directly linked to whether I have assets or connections. that strikes me as wildly inefficient, and it probably has hurt society. some of that has to do with the recession, and some of it is because the vast majority of connected people go to the better schools and come from wealthy families. would a tax increase for the wealthy help the situation? long-term, I don't know. short-term, obviously not.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I view what the correct level of taxation should be and CEO compensation as two totally different issues so I won't be linking one with the other.In a fairly simplistic way this is how I view things and I think how the Author of that article does. If you assume that the total economic output of a firm is a given amount then it's split up into three areas in my simple example.One is the dividends and retained earnings that accrue to the owners of the company. The second is the compensation to the executives of the company and the third is the compensation paid to the non-executives. To me this is a zero sum game and the CEO's through rigging the compensation game in a collective way are gaining more of the output then they deserve at the expense of the owners of the company and the non-executive employees.I don't think this is healthy for society as a whole but I'm not sure that the government has an answer for it other than possibly through some securities regulations that might some how put the amount of the Executive compensation more directly decided by the shareholders. I don't think the answer is some sort of regulation of their compensation by government such as setting a maximum salary as some sort of multiple of the lowest paid employees or of the average wages of the company as some have suggested. I just think it's important to realize why CEO compensation is so much higher today than it was 20 or 30 years ago and it's not because the CEO's are more talented or bringing more value to their companies but rather because of a rigged compensation system that has developed to ensure that Executives keep getting a larger and larger piece of the pie.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Different way of thinking;Democrats: CEO are getting too much compensation.Republicans: How can I become a CEO?
Heh, I'm going to have to steal that one
Link to post
Share on other sites
Different way of thinking;Democrats: Where 'da gay sex at? Republicans: JESUS!
I agree that the left is a huge draw to failures who use it as a bilge to project blame, but right wing dogma isn't working. Opportunity and access to achievement has never been more limited to a tinier group of people. So, yes, Republicans would be more likely to tell their children to dream about being a CEO while some retard on the left would hand their kid a basketball and tell them to dream of the NBA. The outcome is the same. For everyone one who becomes that 'shining example, 20,000 are left dejected and forced back a painful reality that, right now, doesn't offer much.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree that the left is a huge draw to failures who use it as a bilge to project blame, but right wing dogma isn't working. Opportunity and access to achievement has never been more limited to a tinier group of people. So, yes, Republicans would be more likely to tell their children to dream about being a CEO while some retard on the left would hand their kid a basketball and tell them to dream of the NBA. The outcome is the same. For everyone one who becomes that 'shining example, 20,000 are left dejected and forced back a painful reality that, right now, doesn't offer much.
Absolutely right that the rep-dems line is not really where the problem is. There is a structural problem within Western society which neither 'left' nor 'right' is willing to address. But this false paradigm gives the masses something to cling to, and live out their 'Us vs them' tribalism.
Link to post
Share on other sites
So, yes, Republicans would be more likely to tell their children to dream about being a CEO while some retard on the left would hand their kid a basketball and tell them to dream of the NBA. The outcome is the same. For everyone one who becomes that 'shining example, 20,000 are left dejected and forced back a painful reality that, right now, doesn't offer much.
Coming up short in becoming CEO could mean you're a middle manager or something (which I know you would absolutely loathe, but it's not bad for everyone). Coming up short in the NBA means you have to do something different.I realize this has nothing to do with your real point, but I...I guess I just felt like saying something.I'd rather be an NBA player making $5m a year for 10 years than a CEO making $75m for 25.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Coming up short in becoming CEO could mean you're a middle manager or something (which I know you would absolutely loathe, but it's not bad for everyone). Coming up short in the NBA means you have to do something different.I realize this has nothing to do with your real point, but I...I guess I just felt like saying something.I'd rather be an NBA player making $5m a year for 10 years than a CEO making $75m for 25.
This post screams that you have a small penis....
Link to post
Share on other sites

do you think women talk about penis size a lot? like lets say that i recently had relations with a woman (ha!) and she was out the next day with her friend(s). if she told them about the sex would their line of questioning be: (1) how was it? (2) is he big? and when she says, bad and small, where does it go after that? does he have a job at least? is he funny?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...