Bat shit crazy Elizabeth is at it again, now she wants to take over companies.

[Slade3200]

That’s how it’s structured, genius. That’s why we have elections

The government can't get their own shit straight and you want this idiot Warren to have more power over corporations? No thanks. Buh-bye.

Did I ever say that I wanted Warren to have more power over corporations? Care to show where I said that? Try thinking a little more before you post.

You support the legislation and have spent the entire thread defending it.

Therefore, you get a government issued horse sized vibrator without the batteries.

I don’t have a position on the legislation yet, I just heard about it. I’ve spent the thread asking questions and challenging those of you who are overemotionally reacting.

from what i see about it, i simply don't like the gov telling people how they have to pay people, where it must come from and the like. our gov has zero history of being able to run a business so they need to stop telling people how to do it. i understand oversight and keeping companies from doing illegal things, but to me that's where it ends.

1) make sure they're not endangering the environment
2) make sure they're following proper laws we have, paying taxes and the like
3) go away

if an employee doesn't like what they're doing at a company or isn't making enough, find something else. the very nature of "make businesses more accountable to their employees" is frankly none of the governments business.

"That charter would obligate company directors to consider the interest of all stakeholders, like employees and those in the community where the company is based, and not just those who own the stock. While charters, which define the obligations and structure of American companies, are done at the state level, Warren’s bill brings it to the federal level."

this is for companies with $1bil+ in revenue so smaller companies are not affected. that doesn't change my stance. i simply *do not* want more gov oversight of how *we* conduct our business. it's like they ran out of constructive things to do so they attack "mythical evil" vs. doing something worth while like fix our educational system. provide job training for jobs we see coming and in demand. fix our electrical grid and so forth. while maybe these are being done, they're not talked about enough in my opinion while all the STOP THE GREEDY BASTARDS gets the headlines.

“Let’s change the compensation structure for the CEOs to say that the CEOs will not be permitted to juice the [stock] price, and then once they juice the price, make a quick sale, make a bazillion dollars, and keep emphasizing the incentives,” she said in the interview, part of which aired on “Power Lunch. ”

ok - bazillion dollars? now she's not even being realistic but pumping up the emo-talk so she can get people riled up. she has zero clue what the numbers are so can't even talk realistically about her own proposal.

the gov never gives back power and has been taking quite a bit of it since 9/11 and at this point, the reasons needed during that time have long since faded. we need to stop doing the faux security checks at airports and simply move onto biometric IDs for people.

anyway - i digress. but things like forcing businesses to have employees on the board of directors - that is bullshit. not to say the employees shouldn't be vocal about their company, they should. but in my experience when top brass comes to the office and has even a simple town hall employee meeting, you've always got the employees who ask the stupidest of shit because they don't or can't see the big picture so they start whining about dirty bathrooms or old monitors.

things that at best they need to see their local manager about.

while the answer may be as simple as "well then don't put that employee there" the stance is the same. i am not and will be hard pressed to be in favor of our wasteful gov who is after their own self interests from their own constituents to stay in office. the business is of course after their own self interests and profit; with profit as their reason to be. taking care of their employees, good stewardship in the community and acting in good faith should be up to the business. but as i can't and shouldn't be able to tell people how to behave, the gov has zero business telling companies/corporations how to conduct their business.

so from what i've seen from the bill, it comes across as typical:

Corp Evil; Gov Saves Little Man. Now tell constituents they did something for them but she can't say what cause her economic benefit talk is around "bazillion" dollars, of which is made up to make corps look bad.

Thanks for the thoughtful response. Finally, somebody who actually read the bill and is here to discuss the substance. Thank you!

I agree with you on most of your points. I’m not a big Warren fan, she has always appeared to me to be one of the hyperbolic partisans that causes more problems than solutions in Washington and this bill may very well be an extension of that. With that said, there are two major problems I see in this country that large corporations propagate... wealth inequality and fiscal corruption. If this bill can address those problems by bringing a level of accountability to the billion dollar corporations then i’d be open to it. Initially I liked the idea of the corporations being accountable to the stakeholders rather than the government. I need to dig deeper into the nuts and bolts to see if this bill would have positive effects or if it would just bog things down with more red tape and lawsuits. In the end I’m a small business guy and I’ve seen way to many of our great ma and pop businesses get swallowed up or forced out by the big dogs, I hate seeing that and feels it is a major issue in our country. You made some good points for me to think about regarding this bill so thanks again.

 

[Slade3200]

Generally speaking I agree. When a company is making over a billion a year they take in a greater responsibilities than the smaller fish, IMO

Not government's job to get that involved in how they run their company.

I agree, but billion dollar companies play a different game than all the others. They deserve more oversight

Making everyone part of the company's operating structure is not oversight, it's socialism.

Making the government in control of the companies operating structure is socialism. Making everyone part of a companies operating structure is closer to a democracy.

No, its socialism because in the end the government is going to be the one calling the shots as the "stakeholder" with the most power and the claim of representing "the people"

How so?

 

[iceberg]

The government can't get their own shit straight and you want this idiot Warren to have more power over corporations? No thanks. Buh-bye.

Did I ever say that I wanted Warren to have more power over corporations? Care to show where I said that? Try thinking a little more before you post.

You support the legislation and have spent the entire thread defending it.

Therefore, you get a government issued horse sized vibrator without the batteries.

I don’t have a position on the legislation yet, I just heard about it. I’ve spent the thread asking questions and challenging those of you who are overemotionally reacting.

from what i see about it, i simply don't like the gov telling people how they have to pay people, where it must come from and the like. our gov has zero history of being able to run a business so they need to stop telling people how to do it. i understand oversight and keeping companies from doing illegal things, but to me that's where it ends.

1) make sure they're not endangering the environment
2) make sure they're following proper laws we have, paying taxes and the like
3) go away

if an employee doesn't like what they're doing at a company or isn't making enough, find something else. the very nature of "make businesses more accountable to their employees" is frankly none of the governments business.

"That charter would obligate company directors to consider the interest of all stakeholders, like employees and those in the community where the company is based, and not just those who own the stock. While charters, which define the obligations and structure of American companies, are done at the state level, Warren’s bill brings it to the federal level."

this is for companies with $1bil+ in revenue so smaller companies are not affected. that doesn't change my stance. i simply *do not* want more gov oversight of how *we* conduct our business. it's like they ran out of constructive things to do so they attack "mythical evil" vs. doing something worth while like fix our educational system. provide job training for jobs we see coming and in demand. fix our electrical grid and so forth. while maybe these are being done, they're not talked about enough in my opinion while all the STOP THE GREEDY BASTARDS gets the headlines.

“Let’s change the compensation structure for the CEOs to say that the CEOs will not be permitted to juice the [stock] price, and then once they juice the price, make a quick sale, make a bazillion dollars, and keep emphasizing the incentives,” she said in the interview, part of which aired on “Power Lunch. ”

ok - bazillion dollars? now she's not even being realistic but pumping up the emo-talk so she can get people riled up. she has zero clue what the numbers are so can't even talk realistically about her own proposal.

the gov never gives back power and has been taking quite a bit of it since 9/11 and at this point, the reasons needed during that time have long since faded. we need to stop doing the faux security checks at airports and simply move onto biometric IDs for people.

anyway - i digress. but things like forcing businesses to have employees on the board of directors - that is bullshit. not to say the employees shouldn't be vocal about their company, they should. but in my experience when top brass comes to the office and has even a simple town hall employee meeting, you've always got the employees who ask the stupidest of shit because they don't or can't see the big picture so they start whining about dirty bathrooms or old monitors.

things that at best they need to see their local manager about.

while the answer may be as simple as "well then don't put that employee there" the stance is the same. i am not and will be hard pressed to be in favor of our wasteful gov who is after their own self interests from their own constituents to stay in office. the business is of course after their own self interests and profit; with profit as their reason to be. taking care of their employees, good stewardship in the community and acting in good faith should be up to the business. but as i can't and shouldn't be able to tell people how to behave, the gov has zero business telling companies/corporations how to conduct their business.

so from what i've seen from the bill, it comes across as typical:

Corp Evil; Gov Saves Little Man. Now tell constituents they did something for them but she can't say what cause her economic benefit talk is around "bazillion" dollars, of which is made up to make corps look bad.

Thanks for the thoughtful response. Finally, somebody who actually read the bill and is here to discuss the substance. Thank you!

I agree with you on most of your points. I’m not a big Warren fan, she has always appeared to me to be one of the hyperbolic partisans that causes more problems than solutions in Washington and this bill may very well be an extension of that. With that said, there are two major problems I see in this country that large corporations propagate... wealth inequality and fiscal corruption. If this bill can address those problems by bringing a level of accountability to the billion dollar corporations then i’d be open to it. Initially I liked the idea of the corporations being accountable to the stakeholders rather than the government. I need to dig deeper into the nuts and bolts to see if this bill would have positive effects or if it would just bog things down with more red tape and lawsuits. In the end I’m a small business guy and I’ve seen way to many of our great ma and pop businesses get swallowed up or forced out by the big dogs, I hate seeing that and feels it is a major issue in our country. You made some good points for me to think about regarding this bill so thanks again.

to me measures and steps like this punish the very success you tout you can have when "coming to america". it simply says the more successful you get, the more it will cost you and the more we will govern what you do and how you do it.

that never gives me a warm fuzzy from a "government" that pays $20k for a toilet seat. (random example). they don't know how to spend the money THEY have so they have zero cred in telling those successful how they should spend theirs.

my brother and i argue a lot about those who can amass a lot of wealth. to me there shouldn't be a cap on that. to him, once you hit a level that $ should go to the gov. we're blending systems and while that always isn't a bad thing, it does send a counter message to people. come to the US and be successful but not TOO successful.

freedom with restrictions - is that really freedom?

 

[Slade3200]

Generally speaking I agree. When a company is making over a billion a year they take in a greater responsibilities than the smaller fish, IMO

Not government's job to get that involved in how they run their company.

I agree, but billion dollar companies play a different game than all the others. They deserve more oversight

Making everyone part of the company's operating structure is not oversight, it's socialism.

Making the government in control of the companies operating structure is socialism. Making everyone part of a companies operating structure is closer to a democracy.

except in this case the gov is forcing the issue and getting involved in private business to tell them how to run it. at best, gray area.

When companies “go public” they have a bunch of legal standards they need to adhere to... do you think that these regulations that have been set up constitute government control over our public companies?

 

[martybegan]

Not government's job to get that involved in how they run their company.

I agree, but billion dollar companies play a different game than all the others. They deserve more oversight

Making everyone part of the company's operating structure is not oversight, it's socialism.

Making the government in control of the companies operating structure is socialism. Making everyone part of a companies operating structure is closer to a democracy.

No, its socialism because in the end the government is going to be the one calling the shots as the "stakeholder" with the most power and the claim of representing "the people"

How so?

Simple natural order, as the biggest dog amongst the stakeholders, once the law stipulates they have to be considered in all company decisions, they will dictate the way the company goes, and screw the shareholders.

 

[iceberg]

Not government's job to get that involved in how they run their company.

I agree, but billion dollar companies play a different game than all the others. They deserve more oversight

Making everyone part of the company's operating structure is not oversight, it's socialism.

Making the government in control of the companies operating structure is socialism. Making everyone part of a companies operating structure is closer to a democracy.

except in this case the gov is forcing the issue and getting involved in private business to tell them how to run it. at best, gray area.

When companies “go public” they have a bunch of legal standards they need to adhere to... do you think that these regulations that have been set up constitute government control over our public companies?

i realize there isn't a "pureist" world to live in. it's a game of compromises and checks and balances. my tendency is less gov. other want more gov and the trick is the balance.

right now we have no balance, just the extremes jumping hard on the see-saw to catapult the other side into the air and giggle.

 

[martybegan]

Not government's job to get that involved in how they run their company.

I agree, but billion dollar companies play a different game than all the others. They deserve more oversight

Making everyone part of the company's operating structure is not oversight, it's socialism.

Making the government in control of the companies operating structure is socialism. Making everyone part of a companies operating structure is closer to a democracy.

except in this case the gov is forcing the issue and getting involved in private business to tell them how to run it. at best, gray area.

When companies “go public” they have a bunch of legal standards they need to adhere to... do you think that these regulations that have been set up constitute government control over our public companies?

Regulations to be followed are not "stakeholders" who's investment has to be protected. If you change the rules to make boards responsible not to just the shareholders but pretty much everyone else, then you add people with no risk in the venture to the decision making process.

 

[blastoff]

Run, run, run, run, Lizzy! Please! Pretty please! With sugar on top!

 

[mudwhistle]

The government wouldn't run it, all I see is a badly needed increase in employee power. The middle class is sinking into poverty too much.

Vote more Democrats out office and the problems solved.

 

[Slade3200]

Did I ever say that I wanted Warren to have more power over corporations? Care to show where I said that? Try thinking a little more before you post.

You support the legislation and have spent the entire thread defending it.

Therefore, you get a government issued horse sized vibrator without the batteries.

I don’t have a position on the legislation yet, I just heard about it. I’ve spent the thread asking questions and challenging those of you who are overemotionally reacting.

from what i see about it, i simply don't like the gov telling people how they have to pay people, where it must come from and the like. our gov has zero history of being able to run a business so they need to stop telling people how to do it. i understand oversight and keeping companies from doing illegal things, but to me that's where it ends.

1) make sure they're not endangering the environment
2) make sure they're following proper laws we have, paying taxes and the like
3) go away

if an employee doesn't like what they're doing at a company or isn't making enough, find something else. the very nature of "make businesses more accountable to their employees" is frankly none of the governments business.

"That charter would obligate company directors to consider the interest of all stakeholders, like employees and those in the community where the company is based, and not just those who own the stock. While charters, which define the obligations and structure of American companies, are done at the state level, Warren’s bill brings it to the federal level."

this is for companies with $1bil+ in revenue so smaller companies are not affected. that doesn't change my stance. i simply *do not* want more gov oversight of how *we* conduct our business. it's like they ran out of constructive things to do so they attack "mythical evil" vs. doing something worth while like fix our educational system. provide job training for jobs we see coming and in demand. fix our electrical grid and so forth. while maybe these are being done, they're not talked about enough in my opinion while all the STOP THE GREEDY BASTARDS gets the headlines.

“Let’s change the compensation structure for the CEOs to say that the CEOs will not be permitted to juice the [stock] price, and then once they juice the price, make a quick sale, make a bazillion dollars, and keep emphasizing the incentives,” she said in the interview, part of which aired on “Power Lunch. ”

ok - bazillion dollars? now she's not even being realistic but pumping up the emo-talk so she can get people riled up. she has zero clue what the numbers are so can't even talk realistically about her own proposal.

the gov never gives back power and has been taking quite a bit of it since 9/11 and at this point, the reasons needed during that time have long since faded. we need to stop doing the faux security checks at airports and simply move onto biometric IDs for people.

anyway - i digress. but things like forcing businesses to have employees on the board of directors - that is bullshit. not to say the employees shouldn't be vocal about their company, they should. but in my experience when top brass comes to the office and has even a simple town hall employee meeting, you've always got the employees who ask the stupidest of shit because they don't or can't see the big picture so they start whining about dirty bathrooms or old monitors.

things that at best they need to see their local manager about.

while the answer may be as simple as "well then don't put that employee there" the stance is the same. i am not and will be hard pressed to be in favor of our wasteful gov who is after their own self interests from their own constituents to stay in office. the business is of course after their own self interests and profit; with profit as their reason to be. taking care of their employees, good stewardship in the community and acting in good faith should be up to the business. but as i can't and shouldn't be able to tell people how to behave, the gov has zero business telling companies/corporations how to conduct their business.

so from what i've seen from the bill, it comes across as typical:

Corp Evil; Gov Saves Little Man. Now tell constituents they did something for them but she can't say what cause her economic benefit talk is around "bazillion" dollars, of which is made up to make corps look bad.

Thanks for the thoughtful response. Finally, somebody who actually read the bill and is here to discuss the substance. Thank you!

I agree with you on most of your points. I’m not a big Warren fan, she has always appeared to me to be one of the hyperbolic partisans that causes more problems than solutions in Washington and this bill may very well be an extension of that. With that said, there are two major problems I see in this country that large corporations propagate... wealth inequality and fiscal corruption. If this bill can address those problems by bringing a level of accountability to the billion dollar corporations then i’d be open to it. Initially I liked the idea of the corporations being accountable to the stakeholders rather than the government. I need to dig deeper into the nuts and bolts to see if this bill would have positive effects or if it would just bog things down with more red tape and lawsuits. In the end I’m a small business guy and I’ve seen way to many of our great ma and pop businesses get swallowed up or forced out by the big dogs, I hate seeing that and feels it is a major issue in our country. You made some good points for me to think about regarding this bill so thanks again.

to me measures and steps like this punish the very success you tout you can have when "coming to america". it simply says the more successful you get, the more it will cost you and the more we will govern what you do and how you do it.

that never gives me a warm fuzzy from a "government" that pays $20k for a toilet seat. (random example). they don't know how to spend the money THEY have so they have zero cred in telling those successful how they should spend theirs.

my brother and i argue a lot about those who can amass a lot of wealth. to me there shouldn't be a cap on that. to him, once you hit a level that $ should go to the gov. we're blending systems and while that always isn't a bad thing, it does send a counter message to people. come to the US and be successful but not TOO successful.

freedom with restrictions - is that really freedom?

I think I agree with you and your brother. There is a huge problem with wealth inequality as it is destroying the middle class and creating a duaopoly of classes. I also agree that government is wasteful and inefficient and overbloated. I’m not in favor of feeding more to the government. But I’m also not in favor of the top 1% going unchecked. With great power comes great responsibility and when your company is making over a billion dollars a year you take in great responsibility. You might think it unfair to impose higher taxes and regulations on the top people and think it is not freedom, but those people are never going to have to worry about money for the rest of their lives, nor will their families for generations. Good on them, that’s great, they will all have the opportunity to experience more freedom in their lifetimes than most others in this world will ever get.

Id rather see a system where the big companies distribute their wealth back to the people through higher wages, investment, charity, and pro growth efforts that benefit their communities. It would be great if they did this all on their own, but in many cases there does need to be good incentives and regulations in place to help these efforts along.

I’m really not all about the feds getting a big check. That’s why I was interested in this bill. It may not produce effective results per the concerns I just listed but it has stirred a good conversation about it.

 

[Slade3200]

I agree, but billion dollar companies play a different game than all the others. They deserve more oversight

Making everyone part of the company's operating structure is not oversight, it's socialism.

Making the government in control of the companies operating structure is socialism. Making everyone part of a companies operating structure is closer to a democracy.

No, its socialism because in the end the government is going to be the one calling the shots as the "stakeholder" with the most power and the claim of representing "the people"

How so?

Simple natural order, as the biggest dog amongst the stakeholders, once the law stipulates they have to be considered in all company decisions, they will dictate the way the company goes, and screw the shareholders.

I guess my question is how is the government the biggest dog amoungst the stakeholders? I missed that part

 

[iceberg]

You support the legislation and have spent the entire thread defending it.

Therefore, you get a government issued horse sized vibrator without the batteries.

I don’t have a position on the legislation yet, I just heard about it. I’ve spent the thread asking questions and challenging those of you who are overemotionally reacting.

from what i see about it, i simply don't like the gov telling people how they have to pay people, where it must come from and the like. our gov has zero history of being able to run a business so they need to stop telling people how to do it. i understand oversight and keeping companies from doing illegal things, but to me that's where it ends.

1) make sure they're not endangering the environment
2) make sure they're following proper laws we have, paying taxes and the like
3) go away

if an employee doesn't like what they're doing at a company or isn't making enough, find something else. the very nature of "make businesses more accountable to their employees" is frankly none of the governments business.

"That charter would obligate company directors to consider the interest of all stakeholders, like employees and those in the community where the company is based, and not just those who own the stock. While charters, which define the obligations and structure of American companies, are done at the state level, Warren’s bill brings it to the federal level."

this is for companies with $1bil+ in revenue so smaller companies are not affected. that doesn't change my stance. i simply *do not* want more gov oversight of how *we* conduct our business. it's like they ran out of constructive things to do so they attack "mythical evil" vs. doing something worth while like fix our educational system. provide job training for jobs we see coming and in demand. fix our electrical grid and so forth. while maybe these are being done, they're not talked about enough in my opinion while all the STOP THE GREEDY BASTARDS gets the headlines.

“Let’s change the compensation structure for the CEOs to say that the CEOs will not be permitted to juice the [stock] price, and then once they juice the price, make a quick sale, make a bazillion dollars, and keep emphasizing the incentives,” she said in the interview, part of which aired on “Power Lunch. ”

ok - bazillion dollars? now she's not even being realistic but pumping up the emo-talk so she can get people riled up. she has zero clue what the numbers are so can't even talk realistically about her own proposal.

the gov never gives back power and has been taking quite a bit of it since 9/11 and at this point, the reasons needed during that time have long since faded. we need to stop doing the faux security checks at airports and simply move onto biometric IDs for people.

anyway - i digress. but things like forcing businesses to have employees on the board of directors - that is bullshit. not to say the employees shouldn't be vocal about their company, they should. but in my experience when top brass comes to the office and has even a simple town hall employee meeting, you've always got the employees who ask the stupidest of shit because they don't or can't see the big picture so they start whining about dirty bathrooms or old monitors.

things that at best they need to see their local manager about.

while the answer may be as simple as "well then don't put that employee there" the stance is the same. i am not and will be hard pressed to be in favor of our wasteful gov who is after their own self interests from their own constituents to stay in office. the business is of course after their own self interests and profit; with profit as their reason to be. taking care of their employees, good stewardship in the community and acting in good faith should be up to the business. but as i can't and shouldn't be able to tell people how to behave, the gov has zero business telling companies/corporations how to conduct their business.

so from what i've seen from the bill, it comes across as typical:

Corp Evil; Gov Saves Little Man. Now tell constituents they did something for them but she can't say what cause her economic benefit talk is around "bazillion" dollars, of which is made up to make corps look bad.

Thanks for the thoughtful response. Finally, somebody who actually read the bill and is here to discuss the substance. Thank you!

I agree with you on most of your points. I’m not a big Warren fan, she has always appeared to me to be one of the hyperbolic partisans that causes more problems than solutions in Washington and this bill may very well be an extension of that. With that said, there are two major problems I see in this country that large corporations propagate... wealth inequality and fiscal corruption. If this bill can address those problems by bringing a level of accountability to the billion dollar corporations then i’d be open to it. Initially I liked the idea of the corporations being accountable to the stakeholders rather than the government. I need to dig deeper into the nuts and bolts to see if this bill would have positive effects or if it would just bog things down with more red tape and lawsuits. In the end I’m a small business guy and I’ve seen way to many of our great ma and pop businesses get swallowed up or forced out by the big dogs, I hate seeing that and feels it is a major issue in our country. You made some good points for me to think about regarding this bill so thanks again.

to me measures and steps like this punish the very success you tout you can have when "coming to america". it simply says the more successful you get, the more it will cost you and the more we will govern what you do and how you do it.

that never gives me a warm fuzzy from a "government" that pays $20k for a toilet seat. (random example). they don't know how to spend the money THEY have so they have zero cred in telling those successful how they should spend theirs.

my brother and i argue a lot about those who can amass a lot of wealth. to me there shouldn't be a cap on that. to him, once you hit a level that $ should go to the gov. we're blending systems and while that always isn't a bad thing, it does send a counter message to people. come to the US and be successful but not TOO successful.

freedom with restrictions - is that really freedom?

I think I agree with you and your brother. There is a huge problem with wealth inequality as it is destroying the middle class and creating a duaopoly of classes. I also agree that government is wasteful and inefficient and overbloated. I’m not in favor of feeding more to the government. But I’m also not in favor of the top 1% going unchecked. With great power comes great responsibility and when your company is making over a billion dollars a year you take in great responsibility. You might think it unfair to impose higher taxes and regulations on the top people and think it is not freedom, but those people are never going to have to worry about money for the rest of their lives, nor will their families for generations. Good on them, that’s great, they will all have the opportunity to experience more freedom in their lifetimes than most others in this world will ever get.

Id rather see a system where the big companies distribute their wealth back to the people through higher wages, investment, charity, and pro growth efforts that benefit their communities. It would be great if they did this all on their own, but in many cases there does need to be good incentives and regulations in place to help these efforts along.

I’m really not all about the feds getting a big check. That’s why I was interested in this bill. It may not produce effective results per the concerns I just listed but it has stirred a good conversation about it.

higher wages is fine but it's also assuming the company will continue to profit at the rate those wages now require them to do. sooner or later the employee reaches a point where the value of what they put in is less than what the company can pay someone else to do it so you see them "lay off" or make up reasons to fire those who are high in salary so they can hire college kids in at 1/2 the cost and start over.

so i don't view "higher wages" as a solution when it just means once they hit a plateau they're now at risk of being fired. if the company sees a position costing them $XXX to fill and laws require them to give raises and better wages, sooner or later they just get rid of the employee.

 

[Slade3200]

I agree, but billion dollar companies play a different game than all the others. They deserve more oversight

Making everyone part of the company's operating structure is not oversight, it's socialism.

Making the government in control of the companies operating structure is socialism. Making everyone part of a companies operating structure is closer to a democracy.

except in this case the gov is forcing the issue and getting involved in private business to tell them how to run it. at best, gray area.

When companies “go public” they have a bunch of legal standards they need to adhere to... do you think that these regulations that have been set up constitute government control over our public companies?

Regulations to be followed are not "stakeholders" who's investment has to be protected. If you change the rules to make boards responsible not to just the shareholders but pretty much everyone else, then you add people with no risk in the venture to the decision making process.

That’s a good point, except employees do have skin in the game as their job is their livelihood. I’m a small business owner so I appreciate the roll of owners and employees. I don’t think this idea is fair at all to small business. I’m not convinced it would be good for the big corps either... the value I see in this is it creates a check that looks out for the workers over the greed of the shareholders. For billiondollar companies that means a lot of workers and their families being effected, and also a lot of historical corruption and money floating around at the top

 

[The Original Tree]

You Lefties love that back door take over of private companies, don't you?

Like when Obama and his Marxist Murderers took over 1\6th of the economy with his pen and phone.

 

[Slade3200]

I don’t have a position on the legislation yet, I just heard about it. I’ve spent the thread asking questions and challenging those of you who are overemotionally reacting.

from what i see about it, i simply don't like the gov telling people how they have to pay people, where it must come from and the like. our gov has zero history of being able to run a business so they need to stop telling people how to do it. i understand oversight and keeping companies from doing illegal things, but to me that's where it ends.

1) make sure they're not endangering the environment
2) make sure they're following proper laws we have, paying taxes and the like
3) go away

if an employee doesn't like what they're doing at a company or isn't making enough, find something else. the very nature of "make businesses more accountable to their employees" is frankly none of the governments business.

"That charter would obligate company directors to consider the interest of all stakeholders, like employees and those in the community where the company is based, and not just those who own the stock. While charters, which define the obligations and structure of American companies, are done at the state level, Warren’s bill brings it to the federal level."

this is for companies with $1bil+ in revenue so smaller companies are not affected. that doesn't change my stance. i simply *do not* want more gov oversight of how *we* conduct our business. it's like they ran out of constructive things to do so they attack "mythical evil" vs. doing something worth while like fix our educational system. provide job training for jobs we see coming and in demand. fix our electrical grid and so forth. while maybe these are being done, they're not talked about enough in my opinion while all the STOP THE GREEDY BASTARDS gets the headlines.

“Let’s change the compensation structure for the CEOs to say that the CEOs will not be permitted to juice the [stock] price, and then once they juice the price, make a quick sale, make a bazillion dollars, and keep emphasizing the incentives,” she said in the interview, part of which aired on “Power Lunch. ”

ok - bazillion dollars? now she's not even being realistic but pumping up the emo-talk so she can get people riled up. she has zero clue what the numbers are so can't even talk realistically about her own proposal.

the gov never gives back power and has been taking quite a bit of it since 9/11 and at this point, the reasons needed during that time have long since faded. we need to stop doing the faux security checks at airports and simply move onto biometric IDs for people.

anyway - i digress. but things like forcing businesses to have employees on the board of directors - that is bullshit. not to say the employees shouldn't be vocal about their company, they should. but in my experience when top brass comes to the office and has even a simple town hall employee meeting, you've always got the employees who ask the stupidest of shit because they don't or can't see the big picture so they start whining about dirty bathrooms or old monitors.

things that at best they need to see their local manager about.

while the answer may be as simple as "well then don't put that employee there" the stance is the same. i am not and will be hard pressed to be in favor of our wasteful gov who is after their own self interests from their own constituents to stay in office. the business is of course after their own self interests and profit; with profit as their reason to be. taking care of their employees, good stewardship in the community and acting in good faith should be up to the business. but as i can't and shouldn't be able to tell people how to behave, the gov has zero business telling companies/corporations how to conduct their business.

so from what i've seen from the bill, it comes across as typical:

Corp Evil; Gov Saves Little Man. Now tell constituents they did something for them but she can't say what cause her economic benefit talk is around "bazillion" dollars, of which is made up to make corps look bad.

Thanks for the thoughtful response. Finally, somebody who actually read the bill and is here to discuss the substance. Thank you!

I agree with you on most of your points. I’m not a big Warren fan, she has always appeared to me to be one of the hyperbolic partisans that causes more problems than solutions in Washington and this bill may very well be an extension of that. With that said, there are two major problems I see in this country that large corporations propagate... wealth inequality and fiscal corruption. If this bill can address those problems by bringing a level of accountability to the billion dollar corporations then i’d be open to it. Initially I liked the idea of the corporations being accountable to the stakeholders rather than the government. I need to dig deeper into the nuts and bolts to see if this bill would have positive effects or if it would just bog things down with more red tape and lawsuits. In the end I’m a small business guy and I’ve seen way to many of our great ma and pop businesses get swallowed up or forced out by the big dogs, I hate seeing that and feels it is a major issue in our country. You made some good points for me to think about regarding this bill so thanks again.

to me measures and steps like this punish the very success you tout you can have when "coming to america". it simply says the more successful you get, the more it will cost you and the more we will govern what you do and how you do it.

that never gives me a warm fuzzy from a "government" that pays $20k for a toilet seat. (random example). they don't know how to spend the money THEY have so they have zero cred in telling those successful how they should spend theirs.

my brother and i argue a lot about those who can amass a lot of wealth. to me there shouldn't be a cap on that. to him, once you hit a level that $ should go to the gov. we're blending systems and while that always isn't a bad thing, it does send a counter message to people. come to the US and be successful but not TOO successful.

freedom with restrictions - is that really freedom?

I think I agree with you and your brother. There is a huge problem with wealth inequality as it is destroying the middle class and creating a duaopoly of classes. I also agree that government is wasteful and inefficient and overbloated. I’m not in favor of feeding more to the government. But I’m also not in favor of the top 1% going unchecked. With great power comes great responsibility and when your company is making over a billion dollars a year you take in great responsibility. You might think it unfair to impose higher taxes and regulations on the top people and think it is not freedom, but those people are never going to have to worry about money for the rest of their lives, nor will their families for generations. Good on them, that’s great, they will all have the opportunity to experience more freedom in their lifetimes than most others in this world will ever get.

Id rather see a system where the big companies distribute their wealth back to the people through higher wages, investment, charity, and pro growth efforts that benefit their communities. It would be great if they did this all on their own, but in many cases there does need to be good incentives and regulations in place to help these efforts along.

I’m really not all about the feds getting a big check. That’s why I was interested in this bill. It may not produce effective results per the concerns I just listed but it has stirred a good conversation about it.

higher wages is fine but it's also assuming the company will continue to profit at the rate those wages now require them to do. sooner or later the employee reaches a point where the value of what they put in is less than what the company can pay someone else to do it so you see them "lay off" or make up reasons to fire those who are high in salary so they can hire college kids in at 1/2 the cost and start over.

so i don't view "higher wages" as a solution when it just means once they hit a plateau they're now at risk of being fired. if the company sees a position costing them $XXX to fill and laws require them to give raises and better wages, sooner or later they just get rid of the employee.

You are right and as robots and automation get more integrated that is going to really mess things up. It showcases one of the major problems in corporate America. Workplaces are no longer a family of people whose value goes beyond the labor but exisits in identity and relationships and community. Workers are becoming nothing more than numbers on P&L statements. We are heading into an age of dangerous waters.

Corporations and the wealthy are only going to grow bigger and stronger. The demand for cheap labor is going to go down. The low class and poverty are going to grow. Small businesses are going to have harder times competing. It’s gonna be a mess.

 

[Slade3200]

You Lefties love that back door take over of private companies, don't you?

Like when Obama and his Marxist Murderers took over 1\6th of the economy with his pen and phone.

We had a good thread going for a few pages and then here you come trying to dumb it all down. Do everybody a favor and go play in the rubber room.

 

[iceberg]

from what i see about it, i simply don't like the gov telling people how they have to pay people, where it must come from and the like. our gov has zero history of being able to run a business so they need to stop telling people how to do it. i understand oversight and keeping companies from doing illegal things, but to me that's where it ends.

1) make sure they're not endangering the environment
2) make sure they're following proper laws we have, paying taxes and the like
3) go away

if an employee doesn't like what they're doing at a company or isn't making enough, find something else. the very nature of "make businesses more accountable to their employees" is frankly none of the governments business.

"That charter would obligate company directors to consider the interest of all stakeholders, like employees and those in the community where the company is based, and not just those who own the stock. While charters, which define the obligations and structure of American companies, are done at the state level, Warren’s bill brings it to the federal level."

this is for companies with $1bil+ in revenue so smaller companies are not affected. that doesn't change my stance. i simply *do not* want more gov oversight of how *we* conduct our business. it's like they ran out of constructive things to do so they attack "mythical evil" vs. doing something worth while like fix our educational system. provide job training for jobs we see coming and in demand. fix our electrical grid and so forth. while maybe these are being done, they're not talked about enough in my opinion while all the STOP THE GREEDY BASTARDS gets the headlines.

“Let’s change the compensation structure for the CEOs to say that the CEOs will not be permitted to juice the [stock] price, and then once they juice the price, make a quick sale, make a bazillion dollars, and keep emphasizing the incentives,” she said in the interview, part of which aired on “Power Lunch. ”

ok - bazillion dollars? now she's not even being realistic but pumping up the emo-talk so she can get people riled up. she has zero clue what the numbers are so can't even talk realistically about her own proposal.

the gov never gives back power and has been taking quite a bit of it since 9/11 and at this point, the reasons needed during that time have long since faded. we need to stop doing the faux security checks at airports and simply move onto biometric IDs for people.

anyway - i digress. but things like forcing businesses to have employees on the board of directors - that is bullshit. not to say the employees shouldn't be vocal about their company, they should. but in my experience when top brass comes to the office and has even a simple town hall employee meeting, you've always got the employees who ask the stupidest of shit because they don't or can't see the big picture so they start whining about dirty bathrooms or old monitors.

things that at best they need to see their local manager about.

while the answer may be as simple as "well then don't put that employee there" the stance is the same. i am not and will be hard pressed to be in favor of our wasteful gov who is after their own self interests from their own constituents to stay in office. the business is of course after their own self interests and profit; with profit as their reason to be. taking care of their employees, good stewardship in the community and acting in good faith should be up to the business. but as i can't and shouldn't be able to tell people how to behave, the gov has zero business telling companies/corporations how to conduct their business.

so from what i've seen from the bill, it comes across as typical:

Corp Evil; Gov Saves Little Man. Now tell constituents they did something for them but she can't say what cause her economic benefit talk is around "bazillion" dollars, of which is made up to make corps look bad.

Thanks for the thoughtful response. Finally, somebody who actually read the bill and is here to discuss the substance. Thank you!

I agree with you on most of your points. I’m not a big Warren fan, she has always appeared to me to be one of the hyperbolic partisans that causes more problems than solutions in Washington and this bill may very well be an extension of that. With that said, there are two major problems I see in this country that large corporations propagate... wealth inequality and fiscal corruption. If this bill can address those problems by bringing a level of accountability to the billion dollar corporations then i’d be open to it. Initially I liked the idea of the corporations being accountable to the stakeholders rather than the government. I need to dig deeper into the nuts and bolts to see if this bill would have positive effects or if it would just bog things down with more red tape and lawsuits. In the end I’m a small business guy and I’ve seen way to many of our great ma and pop businesses get swallowed up or forced out by the big dogs, I hate seeing that and feels it is a major issue in our country. You made some good points for me to think about regarding this bill so thanks again.

to me measures and steps like this punish the very success you tout you can have when "coming to america". it simply says the more successful you get, the more it will cost you and the more we will govern what you do and how you do it.

that never gives me a warm fuzzy from a "government" that pays $20k for a toilet seat. (random example). they don't know how to spend the money THEY have so they have zero cred in telling those successful how they should spend theirs.

my brother and i argue a lot about those who can amass a lot of wealth. to me there shouldn't be a cap on that. to him, once you hit a level that $ should go to the gov. we're blending systems and while that always isn't a bad thing, it does send a counter message to people. come to the US and be successful but not TOO successful.

freedom with restrictions - is that really freedom?

I think I agree with you and your brother. There is a huge problem with wealth inequality as it is destroying the middle class and creating a duaopoly of classes. I also agree that government is wasteful and inefficient and overbloated. I’m not in favor of feeding more to the government. But I’m also not in favor of the top 1% going unchecked. With great power comes great responsibility and when your company is making over a billion dollars a year you take in great responsibility. You might think it unfair to impose higher taxes and regulations on the top people and think it is not freedom, but those people are never going to have to worry about money for the rest of their lives, nor will their families for generations. Good on them, that’s great, they will all have the opportunity to experience more freedom in their lifetimes than most others in this world will ever get.

Id rather see a system where the big companies distribute their wealth back to the people through higher wages, investment, charity, and pro growth efforts that benefit their communities. It would be great if they did this all on their own, but in many cases there does need to be good incentives and regulations in place to help these efforts along.

I’m really not all about the feds getting a big check. That’s why I was interested in this bill. It may not produce effective results per the concerns I just listed but it has stirred a good conversation about it.

higher wages is fine but it's also assuming the company will continue to profit at the rate those wages now require them to do. sooner or later the employee reaches a point where the value of what they put in is less than what the company can pay someone else to do it so you see them "lay off" or make up reasons to fire those who are high in salary so they can hire college kids in at 1/2 the cost and start over.

so i don't view "higher wages" as a solution when it just means once they hit a plateau they're now at risk of being fired. if the company sees a position costing them $XXX to fill and laws require them to give raises and better wages, sooner or later they just get rid of the employee.

You are right and as robots and automation get more integrated that is going to really mess things up. It showcases one of the major problems in corporate America. Workplaces are no longer a family of people whose value goes beyond the labor but exisits in identity and relationships and community. Workers are becoming nothing more than numbers on P&L statements. We are heading into an age of dangerous waters.

Corporations and the wealthy are only going to grow bigger and stronger. The demand for cheap labor is going to go down. The low class and poverty are going to grow. Small businesses are going to have harder times competing. It’s gonna be a mess.

things are changing to be sure but that's technology driven moreso than corps. i'd rather see our gov offer up abilities for people to pull themselves up than companies to toss down "scraps". fix our educational system and give people motivation to do better for themselves and not shift that responsibility to a nameless entity pre-defined as "evil".

 

[martybegan]

Making everyone part of the company's operating structure is not oversight, it's socialism.

Making the government in control of the companies operating structure is socialism. Making everyone part of a companies operating structure is closer to a democracy.

except in this case the gov is forcing the issue and getting involved in private business to tell them how to run it. at best, gray area.

When companies “go public” they have a bunch of legal standards they need to adhere to... do you think that these regulations that have been set up constitute government control over our public companies?

Regulations to be followed are not "stakeholders" who's investment has to be protected. If you change the rules to make boards responsible not to just the shareholders but pretty much everyone else, then you add people with no risk in the venture to the decision making process.

That’s a good point, except employees do have skin in the game as their job is their livelihood. I’m a small business owner so I appreciate the roll of owners and employees. I don’t think this idea is fair at all to small business. I’m not convinced it would be good for the big corps either... the value I see in this is it creates a check that looks out for the workers over the greed of the shareholders. For billiondollar companies that means a lot of workers and their families being effected, and also a lot of historical corruption and money floating around at the top

The thing is once an employee is paid, the money is theirs. the risk is to their future earnings, and nothing stops them from getting another job.

The failure of a company is far more catastrophic to shareholders, nevermind any loss of value in the company.

If a companies stock drops 25% employees still get paid, shareholders on the other hand see their holdings slashed.

So wanting a return on your investment is automatically greed?

 

[iceberg]

Making the government in control of the companies operating structure is socialism. Making everyone part of a companies operating structure is closer to a democracy.

except in this case the gov is forcing the issue and getting involved in private business to tell them how to run it. at best, gray area.

When companies “go public” they have a bunch of legal standards they need to adhere to... do you think that these regulations that have been set up constitute government control over our public companies?

Regulations to be followed are not "stakeholders" who's investment has to be protected. If you change the rules to make boards responsible not to just the shareholders but pretty much everyone else, then you add people with no risk in the venture to the decision making process.

That’s a good point, except employees do have skin in the game as their job is their livelihood. I’m a small business owner so I appreciate the roll of owners and employees. I don’t think this idea is fair at all to small business. I’m not convinced it would be good for the big corps either... the value I see in this is it creates a check that looks out for the workers over the greed of the shareholders. For billiondollar companies that means a lot of workers and their families being effected, and also a lot of historical corruption and money floating around at the top

The thing is once an employee is paid, the money is theirs. the risk is to their future earnings, and nothing stops them from getting another job.

The failure of a company is far more catastrophic to shareholders, nevermind any loss of value in the company.

If a companies stock drops 25% employees still get paid, shareholders on the other hand see their holdings slashed.

So wanting a return on your investment is automatically greed?

that was my point earlier. during these years of high profits it's great. the business usually buy back stocks, enhance the price and many things to *try* and ensure growth continues. giving people raises based on a year or two of high profits isn't realistic long term in my mind or way of thinking.

couple that with sooner or later you're paying people $$$ cause they've been there awhile, companies will jettison you for any reason they can, hire someone else and 1/2 the cost, and "start the cycle over". giving people more money won't stop that from happening, just make it happen sooner.

 

[MarcATL]

What a dumb bitch ... They are losing on RTW, they lost with citizens united so now they are trying to find another way in.



Elizabeth Warren's New Bill Aims to Reinvent U.S. Capitalism


U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren has a plan to rewrite the rules for large U.S. businesses--and it's a provocative one.

The Democratic Senator from Massachusetts is introducing a new bill on Wednesday that would require corporate executives "to consider the interests of all major stakeholders in company decisions--not only shareholders," Warren wrote an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal. The Accountable Capitalism Act would require companies with more than $1 billion in annual revenue--including Facebook, Google, and Amazon--to comply with a federal charter that looks out for workers' interests. Currently, U.S. businesses secure corporation charters from states, not on the federal level.

One of the biggest changes that the bill proposes is for employees to elect at least 40 percent of board directors. The bill also seeks to impose limits on when executives can sell company shares. Directors and officers would have to hold shares for five years before
selling them, or in the case of a company stock buyback, three years. Warren's bill also takes aim at political contributions by requiring approval for all political expenditures from at least 75 percent of shareholders.




.

Look how this poster refers to one of our Congresswomen, as a bitch.

Referring to her bill as an intro to fascism.

Yah, you come off as really stable and level-headed.