Jauronimo Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 perhaps you have knowledge of many things in a cliff clavin sort of way. but you have a very small mind. Perhaps you don't know what the !@#$ you're talking about? That might explain why a lot of people here who work in finance and studied economics think that you don't know that the !@#$ you're talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 perhaps you have knowledge of many things in a cliff clavin sort of way. but you have a very small mind. You don't know how or why executive compensation is structured or reported the way it is, and insist on trying to make a simple comparison to "average" employee wages can't be made that simple. And you insist that the market is "wrong" and arbitrary numbers you pull out of your ass are "right," in no small part because of an argument to authority you can only parrot without understanding. Yeah, you're a real entilehkshuall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 From Kurt Vonnegut’s famous short story “Harrison Bergeron". If you don’t know the story, here is Vonnegut’s self-explanatory opening: The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 From Kurt Vonnegut’s famous short story “Harrison Bergeron". If you don’t know the story, here is Vonnegut’s self-explanatory opening: The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General. . Great quote. Hope I can remember that one when I need it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) "We are now at a point where the top one percent pay more in federal income taxes than the bottom 90 percent," said Tax Foundation economist Kyle Pomerleau. That means roughly 1.36 million taxpayers pay a larger share of the federal income tax than the bottom 90 percent -- or 122 million taxpayers, according to data compiled by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. Edited January 28, 2014 by keepthefaith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Perhaps you don't know what the !@#$ you're talking about? That might explain why a lot of people here who work in finance and studied economics think that you don't know that the !@#$ you're talking about. if paul krugman were posting here do you think any of the financial wizards here would ever agree with him. not quite the equivalent analogy to golden showers that you made but you get the idea... You don't know how or why executive compensation is structured or reported the way it is, and insist on trying to make a simple comparison to "average" employee wages can't be made that simple. And you insist that the market is "wrong" and arbitrary numbers you pull out of your ass are "right," in no small part because of an argument to authority you can only parrot without understanding. Yeah, you're a real entilehkshuall. the costco ceo is getting lauded for taking a bsae of 2.5 mil or so for being frugal. even at that were above 50x avg wages. your point is not material to the argument. so what's new? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 if paul krugman were posting here do you think any of the financial wizards here would ever agree with him. not quite the equivalent analogy to golden showers that you made but you get the idea... the costco ceo is getting lauded for taking a bsae of 2.5 mil or so for being frugal. even at that were above 50x avg wages. your point is not material to the argument. so what's new? It would be welcome to have krugman actually defend his points and not just write them on a piece of paper and have his usual clueless sounding board soap up whatever he writes as gospel. I think it's also been well established that you favor policies that appear to fix an imaginary problem like income /wealth inequality as opposed to fixing the root cause of why the jobs haven't returned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 if paul krugman were posting here do you think any of the financial wizards here would ever agree with him. not quite the equivalent analogy to golden showers that you made but you get the idea... the costco ceo is getting lauded for taking a bsae of 2.5 mil or so for being frugal. even at that were above 50x avg wages. your point is not material to the argument. so what's new? I think he was talking about golden dawn. The golden shower thread is in OTW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 if paul krugman were posting here do you think any of the financial wizards here would ever agree with him. not quite the equivalent analogy to golden showers that you made but you get the idea... the costco ceo is getting lauded for taking a bsae of 2.5 mil or so for being frugal. even at that were above 50x avg wages. your point is not material to the argument. so what's new? Considering that my point is that you're a moron who doesn't know what he's talking about, and considering you're too stupid to even get Jelinek's base salary right, I'd say my point is spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 I think he was talking about golden dawn. The golden shower thread is in OTW. that's clever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 http://youtu.be/aLvJ1mqlM98 Bill Nye is worth $6.5 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Hey Birdbrain, lookie here at all these wealthy people you can envy! Top Actors Top Directors Top Authors Top Rappers Top Celebrity Chefs Top Rock Stars Top Singers/Musicians Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 if paul krugman were posting here do you think any of the financial wizards here would ever agree with him. not quite the equivalent analogy to golden showers that you made but you get the idea... Does Krugman use wage, compensation and wealth interchangeably while arguing for legislation which caps wages/compensation/wealth based on a completely unrelated rule of thumb pertaining to corporate governance and specifically motivating employees? If Krugman were here we might not at all agree but at least we wouldn't be tying his shoes for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Does Krugman use wage, compensation and wealth interchangeably while arguing for legislation which caps wages/compensation/wealth based on a completely unrelated rule of thumb pertaining to corporate governance and specifically motivating employees? If Krugman were here we might not at all agree but at least we wouldn't be tying his shoes for him. the fact that a sizable percentage of most ceo's compensation is provided through low tax burden payments only adds fuel to the argument against exhorbitant ceo pay. many base salaries of top ceo's already surpass the proposed ratio. in those cases, the need to take into account compensation above and beyond the base is moot to the argument. if you want to discuss outlier compensation packages, then the distinction might be necessary but why further complicate the argument? (that's rhetorical. it's clear why you would desire that.) drucker talked about the negative effect that exceeding the ratio had on "the fabric of society". that seems pretty intimately related to what i'm saying. and for the second time, i've not proposed any specific remedy, including legislation, to reach the desired state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 the fact that a sizable percentage of most ceo's compensation is provided through low tax burden payments only adds fuel to the argument against exhorbitant ceo pay. many base salaries of top ceo's already surpass the proposed ratio. in those cases, the need to take into account compensation above and beyond the base is moot to the argument. if you want to discuss outlier compensation packages, then the distinction might be necessary but why further complicate the argument? (that's rhetorical. it's clear why you would desire that.) drucker talked about the negative effect that exceeding the ratio had on "the fabric of society". that seems pretty intimately related to what i'm saying. and for the second time, i've not proposed any specific remedy, including legislation, to reach the desired state. So? You're missing the most fundamental of points. Q: Why is CEO pay an issue? A: No more than 30x. Q: How did you arrive at that number? A: Drucker. Q: How did Drucker arrive at that number? A: Dude....Drucker. Q: If you can't support this in any way shape or form why should I take you seriously? A: I already answered this...Drucker. Also, the Swiss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Cain Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 What we need is a revolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 What we need is a revolution. You say you want a revolution.....................Well, you know We all want to change the world But when you talk about destruction............................Don't you know that you can count me out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Cain Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 You say you want a revolution.....................Well, you know We all want to change the world But when you talk about destruction............................Don't you know that you can count me out Rand Paul wants a revolution oh oh yeah yeah....rand Paul just wants to change the US....he says he's gonna end some govt institutions oh oh yeah yeah.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 So? You're missing the most fundamental of points. Q: Why is CEO pay an issue? A: No more than 30x. Q: How did you arrive at that number? A: Drucker. Q: How did Drucker arrive at that number? A: Dude....Drucker. Q: If you can't support this in any way shape or form why should I take you seriously? A: I already answered this...Drucker. Also, the Swiss. so you're dropping the whole compensation/wage obfiscation plan? great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 (edited) so you're dropping the whole compensation/wage obfiscation plan? great. No. You still use words interchangeably because you lack basic financial comprehension as well as the vocabulary necessary to have this discussion. Whether you want to discuss multiples of wealth, wage, compensation is moot since you cannot support your base argument. Rather than attempt a nuanced discussion about your misunderstandings on executive pay, I thought I would point out how lost you are in hopes that you might take a moment for self-reflection. Edited January 29, 2014 by Jauronimo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts