birdog1960 Posted July 22, 2010 Author Posted July 22, 2010 Well, in fairness, where would the world be without Ikea? The leader in cheap furniture. Maybe if we stunt American ingenuity we could make our own cheap furniture, and even name it something we can understand. Are you for real, or is this one of those conversations that's going to end with "Geez, guys, I was just kidding." where would we be without BP? AIG? Countrywide? Bear stearns, Merrill? GM....
bills_fan Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 sure, the scandanavian countries are so much worse off than us right now and have no leadership. Yep. That Finnish company, Nokia, had a CEO make $3.39 million here. And that was a 30% raise in a year when his company's share price declined 20%. Sounds downright American to me.
finknottle Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 there should be outrage. the average from the 1940's to 80's was 40x. 80 is obviously twice that. have ceo's become twice as good? twice as valuable? twice as productive? are they worth more than professionals in other fields with equivalent or more education and similar levels of responsibilities? There are very few lawyers or doctors (even neurosurgeons or heart surgeons) making anywhere near $2mil/year. do you think they're underpaid? i don't (and i'm one of those professionals). there's no shortage of applicants for professional school with remuneration set at more reasonable levels. ya think the best and brightest would give up the quest for CEOdom if they were gonna make only 40X average? I think 80X average is unjustifiable. it appears you don't. I don't like 80X, but it is a function of the marketplace. Justification has nothing to do with it. You might as well reject gravity and evolution, and be enraged that WNBA salaries don't match the NBA. But I think the distinction between a Fortune 500 CEO and an average CEO flew right by you, which is the only point I am trying to make. Open your copy of the White Pages and pick a company at random. It's probably a dental practice, or a bicycle shop chain, or maybe an auto parts distributor. Find out if their CEO makes 300 times the average salary - that's about 15 million a year, right? To take your example: lawyers. Sure, they don't average 2 million a year. But how much do you want to bet that the 500 best paid lawyers in the country don't average it? There are 24,000 companies in the US. If you really want to get your underwear in a bunch, it shouldn't be over the fact that the top 500 CEO's out of that group make so much. It should be over the fact that the top 500 companies dominate the US market so thoroughly: 2% of companies account for 73% of GDP. But, ironically, their success at disporportionately dominating the marketplace is something of an argument for paying their CEO's so outrageously. If you are a company doing $10 billion a year in business, what's an extra $10 million if that's what it takes to get the CEO you think might give you an edge in staying on top? Here are your choices: - use $10 million to get the CEO of your choice, - using that money to reduce prices by one one thousandth, or - give everybody in the company a one dollar a year raise (before taxes). What would you do with the money in a company that large? Which option is likely to make the most difference?
birdog1960 Posted July 22, 2010 Author Posted July 22, 2010 Yep. That Finnish company, Nokia, had a CEO make $3.39 million here. And that was a 30% raise in a year when his company's share price declined 20%. Sounds downright American to me. yes they are imperfect but much closer to equitable wages than us. it is a global economy and will eventually require a global solution. (can't wait for the replies to that).
Rob's House Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 I'm still waiting to hear about when and where all this unfettered capitalism failed.
Magox Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 there should be outrage. the average from the 1940's to 80's was 40x. 80 is obviously twice that. have ceo's become twice as good? twice as valuable? twice as productive? are they worth more than professionals in other fields with equivalent or more education and similar levels of responsibilities? There are very few lawyers or doctors (even neurosurgeons or heart surgeons) making anywhere near $2mil/year. do you think they're underpaid? i don't (and i'm one of those professionals). there's no shortage of applicants for professional school with remuneration set at more reasonable levels. ya think the best and brightest would give up the quest for CEOdom if they were gonna make only 40X average? I think 80X average is unjustifiable. it appears you don't. Apparently you don't believe in capitalism. Not that there is anything wrong with that, it's an idealogical difference. Now that we've cleared that up, this is a capitalist country, so get the !@#$ over it.
birdog1960 Posted July 22, 2010 Author Posted July 22, 2010 I'm still waiting to hear about when and where all this unfettered capitalism failed. let's see...near depression, recession with persistent risk of double dip, decreasing real wages for average workers, unemployment>10%, national debt 40% GDP, massive bailouts of too big to fails, borrowing for all US expenses (most from a communist, socialist country) except social, security, medicare, medicaid and debt interest (yes that's right all other programs including 2 wars are being financed by loans). i'm tired and sad, is that enough....
finknottle Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 I'm still waiting to hear about when and where all this unfettered capitalism failed. Capitalism has failed because it's outcomes don't meet the 'fairness' sensibilities of its critics. 1. What you choose to do for a career shouldn't matter as much as how hard you are willing to work. Yet manual labor salaries continue to lag those of part-time IT consultants. 1. Equally talented people who perform equally ardous tasks should be equally compensated. Being an expert on the subject of 12th century farming is just as difficult as being an expert on modern financial derivatives, requires at least as much education and training, and should be compensated accordingly. It isn't. 2. In America, everybody is special. Everybody is the best at what they do. They should all be successfull. They aren't.
erynthered Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 yes, i'm suggesting a cap. unfettered, uncontrolled capitalism is failing and will continue to fail unless some reasonable limits are placed. i believe consensus could be reached on what is reasonable. Many factors could go into determining what someones skills are worth including rarity, value to society, need for incentives to pursue difficult career paths etc... it would be much better than the womb lottery and old boys network that often determines compensation now Is capitalism failing because of the polices that this administration is implimenting? That city in CA disagrees with you thinking.
GG Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 Whatever happened to the "Evil Capitalist" dude with the Snerdley avatar? He's hanging out somewhere.
erynthered Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 let's see...near depression, recession with persistent risk of double dip, decreasing real wages for average workers, unemployment>10%, national debt 40% GDP, massive bailouts of too big to fails, borrowing for all US expenses (most from a communist, socialist country) except social, security, medicare, medicaid and debt interest (yes that's right all other programs including 2 wars are being financed by loans). i'm tired and sad, is that enough.... You're more sad then tired. Fannie an Freddie were just as much a contributier to this mess then anyone. And who encouraged those loans?
birdog1960 Posted July 22, 2010 Author Posted July 22, 2010 You're more sad then tired. Fannie an Freddie were just as much a contributier to this mess then anyone. And who encouraged those loans? and people profiteered through fannie and freddie. it wasn't mismanagement per se but greed
finknottle Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 let's see...near depression, recession with persistent risk of double dip, decreasing real wages for average workers, unemployment>10%, national debt 40% GDP, massive bailouts of too big to fails, borrowing for all US expenses (most from a communist, socialist country) except social, security, medicare, medicaid and debt interest (yes that's right all other programs including 2 wars are being financed by loans). i'm tired and sad, is that enough.... What would you point to as a non-capitalist success story? How are things looking in Europe?
erynthered Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 and people profiteered through fannie and freddie. it wasn't mismanagement per se but greed People did profit from those loans. Did Dodd and Franks have anything to do with that mess? Com'on did they???
IDBillzFan Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 let's see...near depression, recession with persistent risk of double dip, decreasing real wages for average workers, unemployment>10%, national debt 40% GDP, massive bailouts of too big to fails, borrowing for all US expenses (most from a communist, socialist country) except social, security, medicare, medicaid and debt interest (yes that's right all other programs including 2 wars are being financed by loans). i'm tired and sad, is that enough.... And you think all of these problems are caused by capitalism?
Magox Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 and people profiteered through fannie and freddie. it wasn't mismanagement per se but greed You are a revisionist of history of sorts. Mismanagement is exactly what happened. There was tremendous political pressure placed upon the GSE's to lend to lower-income people, considering that Fannie and Freddie were so heavily subsidized by the government, they HAD to lend to people that shouldn't of been receiving loans in the first place. Lax underwriting standards was at the heart of the crisis that we went through, that is a fact, of course there were other factors, such as loose monetary policy, useless creation of certain derivatives that had no tangible use to support the housing market (Synthetic CDO's), failure of the ratings agencies, unscrupulous mortgage lending practices, greed from Wall Street, but as I stated earlier, the ROOT cause of the crisis was due to too many people being placed in homes that should of never of received those home loans. I suggest you study up on the History of Fannie and a piece of legislation called the (CRA). As a matter of fact, I recently wrote a newsletter regarding this topic. http://www.gold-observer.com/newsletter/1-..._what_to_expect
Rob's House Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 let's see...near depression, recession with persistent risk of double dip, decreasing real wages for average workers, unemployment>10%, national debt 40% GDP, massive bailouts of too big to fails, borrowing for all US expenses (most from a communist, socialist country) except social, security, medicare, medicaid and debt interest (yes that's right all other programs including 2 wars are being financed by loans). i'm tired and sad, is that enough.... None of what you just listed has anything to do with unfettered capitalism. National debt has less than nothing to do with capitalism, massive bailouts are the antithesis of capitalism, and government borrowing regardless of the reason has nothing to do with capitalism. War is not an enterprise exclusively capitalistic either. And not to exonerate any particular businesses from any fault, but you can't talk about the financial meltdown without including the GSEs that were responsible for roughly 1/3 of subprime mortgages in the country. In fact, almost everything you listed is directly linked to government interventionism, which I believe is what you are arguing in favor of. That being the case, I still don't think I've been provided an example of unfettered capitalism failing.
birdog1960 Posted July 22, 2010 Author Posted July 22, 2010 People did profit from those loans. Did Dodd and Franks have anything to do with that mess? Com'on did they??? sorry my hands and feet are sore, had to grab my nunchucks and pointy metal stars. who helped fund their war chests for reelection? where do there loyalties lie and why? taking greed out through election reform might help but the supremes go and make it worse!
Alaska Darin Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 sure, the scandanavian countries are so much worse off than us right now and have no leadership. So move there.
....lybob Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 there should be outrage. the average from the 1940's to 80's was 40x. 80 is obviously twice that. have ceo's become twice as good? twice as valuable? twice as productive? are they worth more than professionals in other fields with equivalent or more education and similar levels of responsibilities? There are very few lawyers or doctors (even neurosurgeons or heart surgeons) making anywhere near $2mil/year. do you think they're underpaid? i don't (and i'm one of those professionals). there's no shortage of applicants for professional school with remuneration set at more reasonable levels. ya think the best and brightest would give up the quest for CEOdom if they were gonna make only 40X average? I think 80X average is unjustifiable. it appears you don't. There's a couple things that probably contribute Changes in the share-holder company relationship vis-a-vis pension funds,hedge funds, and mutual funds, formerly when the stock market was more for rich individuals a majority owner had more knowledge of the company and more say in company policies and direction, now that stock holding are more aggregate holdings managed more by statistical analysis more than any knowledge of the company or industry majority owners if there are any are hands off. Changes in the CEO Board relationship- much more cozy for a lot of reasons Pay rate contagion - any company overpaying can quickly turn into a new norm Very large companies are in stiff competition for the best managers - there may only be a slight difference between the very best manager and the 250th best manager but in a huge company that slight difference could be worth hundreds of millions or maybe billions- thus the #1 manager might get offered 5x the salary of the 250th best manager even though the difference in their skills is tiny. There is a problem though called "Regression toward the mean" now the guy you're paying 5x as much isn't preforming any better than the 250th guy in fact he may be a tiny bit worst- now you are going to have 250 CEO's pointing to your CEO saying I'm doing better than him why is he making 5x what I make. and on it goes, oh and there is a lot of fraud going on too- look into restatement of earnings figures for American businesses - and wonder if any bonuses based on original earning statements were ever given back.
Recommended Posts