Why do democrats hate poor black people and want them permanently on welfare?

[Brain357]

I'd just like to applaud everyone for having civil conversation. Sometimes it can be rare on a message board. But it's been an enjoyable conversation.

 

[Papageorgio]

Your claim is not right because you said that CEO's and their salary are out of control and not regulated because the BOD is fixed. The BOD is selected by shareholders who value their investment and would never allow any prolonged loss of their investments.

The BOD does not select the BOD. They just vote on the CEO who wants to be on their board.

What I said was that it's the stockholders who vote on the BOD's.

I'm aware, but it's not like a democratic process. The holders don't pick who they are voting for. It's just one big racket. You can't see the problem with having CEO's in the board? And the board picks who's up for vote in the board? You don't question CEO pay at all even though it can't be explained by any economic indicators? The system is rigged. To believe otherwise is just foolish.

Outrageous Executive Compensation: Corporate Boards, Not the Market, Are to Blame

The standard justification for the high pay of CEOs and other top executives is that the market demands it. It is argued that if you do not pay CEOs at or above the market, they will leave and go to a competitor. There are a number of problems with this argument. Perhaps the most important one is that numerous studies have shown that CEOs rarely move from one company to another, and when they do, they are usually less successful than internal candidates. In short, at least at the CEO level, there is little evidence that an efficient market for talent exists that is based on compensation levels.

Some members of corporate boards have an even greater self-interest in making sure that the compensation of the CEO continues to go up, up, and up. They are the CEOs of other companies. You don’t have to be a compensation expert to realize that if you vote for one of your peers to have a higher salary, you are in effect voting for your own salary to go up, because it is based on what will be a higher market.

For boards to change their stripes when it comes to executive compensation, major changes need to take place in who is on corporate boards and on their compensation committees. It would mean fewer CEOs on corporate boards. It would require more board members who understand talent management and are concerned about the societal impact of corporations. Another effective change would be to have a board membership that is dominated by strong, independent directors.

some CEOs make too much in your opinion, and in mine. So do most athletes and entertainers. The difference is that a CEO is making money for the shareholders and employees whereas the jocks and Hollywood types are only making themselves rich.

The difference is the CEO is determining his own pay. Athletes and entertainers pay is determined by the owner of the teams or CEO's of the entertainment industry. But I do agree they are all over paid.

A Board of Directors set the CEO's pay.

 

[Brain357]

The BOD does not select the BOD. They just vote on the CEO who wants to be on their board.

What I said was that it's the stockholders who vote on the BOD's.

I'm aware, but it's not like a democratic process. The holders don't pick who they are voting for. It's just one big racket. You can't see the problem with having CEO's in the board? And the board picks who's up for vote in the board? You don't question CEO pay at all even though it can't be explained by any economic indicators? The system is rigged. To believe otherwise is just foolish.

Outrageous Executive Compensation: Corporate Boards, Not the Market, Are to Blame

The standard justification for the high pay of CEOs and other top executives is that the market demands it. It is argued that if you do not pay CEOs at or above the market, they will leave and go to a competitor. There are a number of problems with this argument. Perhaps the most important one is that numerous studies have shown that CEOs rarely move from one company to another, and when they do, they are usually less successful than internal candidates. In short, at least at the CEO level, there is little evidence that an efficient market for talent exists that is based on compensation levels.

Some members of corporate boards have an even greater self-interest in making sure that the compensation of the CEO continues to go up, up, and up. They are the CEOs of other companies. You don’t have to be a compensation expert to realize that if you vote for one of your peers to have a higher salary, you are in effect voting for your own salary to go up, because it is based on what will be a higher market.

For boards to change their stripes when it comes to executive compensation, major changes need to take place in who is on corporate boards and on their compensation committees. It would mean fewer CEOs on corporate boards. It would require more board members who understand talent management and are concerned about the societal impact of corporations. Another effective change would be to have a board membership that is dominated by strong, independent directors.

some CEOs make too much in your opinion, and in mine. So do most athletes and entertainers. The difference is that a CEO is making money for the shareholders and employees whereas the jocks and Hollywood types are only making themselves rich.

The difference is the CEO is determining his own pay. Athletes and entertainers pay is determined by the owner of the teams or CEO's of the entertainment industry. But I do agree they are all over paid.

A Board of Directors set the CEO's pay.

The board is filled with other Ceos who also want raises.

 

[Brain357]

The BOD does not select the BOD. They just vote on the CEO who wants to be on their board.

What I said was that it's the stockholders who vote on the BOD's.

I'm aware, but it's not like a democratic process. The holders don't pick who they are voting for. It's just one big racket. You can't see the problem with having CEO's in the board? And the board picks who's up for vote in the board? You don't question CEO pay at all even though it can't be explained by any economic indicators? The system is rigged. To believe otherwise is just foolish.

Outrageous Executive Compensation: Corporate Boards, Not the Market, Are to Blame

The standard justification for the high pay of CEOs and other top executives is that the market demands it. It is argued that if you do not pay CEOs at or above the market, they will leave and go to a competitor. There are a number of problems with this argument. Perhaps the most important one is that numerous studies have shown that CEOs rarely move from one company to another, and when they do, they are usually less successful than internal candidates. In short, at least at the CEO level, there is little evidence that an efficient market for talent exists that is based on compensation levels.

Some members of corporate boards have an even greater self-interest in making sure that the compensation of the CEO continues to go up, up, and up. They are the CEOs of other companies. You don’t have to be a compensation expert to realize that if you vote for one of your peers to have a higher salary, you are in effect voting for your own salary to go up, because it is based on what will be a higher market.

For boards to change their stripes when it comes to executive compensation, major changes need to take place in who is on corporate boards and on their compensation committees. It would mean fewer CEOs on corporate boards. It would require more board members who understand talent management and are concerned about the societal impact of corporations. Another effective change would be to have a board membership that is dominated by strong, independent directors.

some CEOs make too much in your opinion, and in mine. So do most athletes and entertainers. The difference is that a CEO is making money for the shareholders and employees whereas the jocks and Hollywood types are only making themselves rich.

The difference is the CEO is determining his own pay. Athletes and entertainers pay is determined by the owner of the teams or CEO's of the entertainment industry. But I do agree they are all over paid.

A Board of Directors set the CEO's pay.

Who can change the pay? Ostensibly the board of directors. But who makes up most boards? Largely still CEOs (and former CEOs). It doesn’t do any board member’s reputation any good with his peers to try and cut CEO pay. You certainly don’t want your objection to “Joe’s” pay coming up when its time to set your pay.

Why CEOs Make So Much Money

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There is lots of evidence that too much inequality slows an economy:
Reducing income inequality would boost economic growth, according to new OECD analysis. This work finds that countries where income inequality is decreasing grow faster than those with rising inequality.

Inequality hurts economic growth, finds OECD research - OECD

Well how does one reduce pay inequity?

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage competes favorably with the cost of social services.

A fifteen dollar minimum wage will end pay inequity?

It will reduce pay inequality to that extent.

Social services pays out about fourteen dollars an hour by comparison.

There is no reason to subsidize the rich through underpayment of minimum wages.

We are not subsidizing the rich, we are subsidizing the poor. So we increase minimum wage, and instead of the lowlifes working 30 hours a week, they drop down to 20 hours a week to keep their benefits. What was accomplished except allowing the lowlife to work less hours?

 

[Papageorgio]

What I said was that it's the stockholders who vote on the BOD's.

I'm aware, but it's not like a democratic process. The holders don't pick who they are voting for. It's just one big racket. You can't see the problem with having CEO's in the board? And the board picks who's up for vote in the board? You don't question CEO pay at all even though it can't be explained by any economic indicators? The system is rigged. To believe otherwise is just foolish.

Outrageous Executive Compensation: Corporate Boards, Not the Market, Are to Blame

The standard justification for the high pay of CEOs and other top executives is that the market demands it. It is argued that if you do not pay CEOs at or above the market, they will leave and go to a competitor. There are a number of problems with this argument. Perhaps the most important one is that numerous studies have shown that CEOs rarely move from one company to another, and when they do, they are usually less successful than internal candidates. In short, at least at the CEO level, there is little evidence that an efficient market for talent exists that is based on compensation levels.

Some members of corporate boards have an even greater self-interest in making sure that the compensation of the CEO continues to go up, up, and up. They are the CEOs of other companies. You don’t have to be a compensation expert to realize that if you vote for one of your peers to have a higher salary, you are in effect voting for your own salary to go up, because it is based on what will be a higher market.

For boards to change their stripes when it comes to executive compensation, major changes need to take place in who is on corporate boards and on their compensation committees. It would mean fewer CEOs on corporate boards. It would require more board members who understand talent management and are concerned about the societal impact of corporations. Another effective change would be to have a board membership that is dominated by strong, independent directors.

some CEOs make too much in your opinion, and in mine. So do most athletes and entertainers. The difference is that a CEO is making money for the shareholders and employees whereas the jocks and Hollywood types are only making themselves rich.

The difference is the CEO is determining his own pay. Athletes and entertainers pay is determined by the owner of the teams or CEO's of the entertainment industry. But I do agree they are all over paid.

A Board of Directors set the CEO's pay.

The board is filled with other Ceos who also want raises.

There are some but they have a bigger obligation to the stockholders.

 

[Brain357]

There is lots of evidence that too much inequality slows an economy:
Reducing income inequality would boost economic growth, according to new OECD analysis. This work finds that countries where income inequality is decreasing grow faster than those with rising inequality.

Inequality hurts economic growth, finds OECD research - OECD

Well how does one reduce pay inequity?

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage competes favorably with the cost of social services.

A fifteen dollar minimum wage will end pay inequity?

It will reduce pay inequality to that extent.

Social services pays out about fourteen dollars an hour by comparison.

There is no reason to subsidize the rich through underpayment of minimum wages.

We are not subsidizing the rich, we are subsidizing the poor. So we increase minimum wage, and instead of the lowlifes working 30 hours a week, they drop down to 20 hours a week to keep their benefits. What was accomplished except allowing the lowlife to work less hours?

Is the worker choosing to cut hours or the employer? Lots of companies use part time and temporary workers to avoid full time pay.

I think we need to get back to full time workers making significantly more than part time and welfare. That creates more pride and incentive to work.

 

[Brain357]

I'm aware, but it's not like a democratic process. The holders don't pick who they are voting for. It's just one big racket. You can't see the problem with having CEO's in the board? And the board picks who's up for vote in the board? You don't question CEO pay at all even though it can't be explained by any economic indicators? The system is rigged. To believe otherwise is just foolish.

Outrageous Executive Compensation: Corporate Boards, Not the Market, Are to Blame

The standard justification for the high pay of CEOs and other top executives is that the market demands it. It is argued that if you do not pay CEOs at or above the market, they will leave and go to a competitor. There are a number of problems with this argument. Perhaps the most important one is that numerous studies have shown that CEOs rarely move from one company to another, and when they do, they are usually less successful than internal candidates. In short, at least at the CEO level, there is little evidence that an efficient market for talent exists that is based on compensation levels.

Some members of corporate boards have an even greater self-interest in making sure that the compensation of the CEO continues to go up, up, and up. They are the CEOs of other companies. You don’t have to be a compensation expert to realize that if you vote for one of your peers to have a higher salary, you are in effect voting for your own salary to go up, because it is based on what will be a higher market.

For boards to change their stripes when it comes to executive compensation, major changes need to take place in who is on corporate boards and on their compensation committees. It would mean fewer CEOs on corporate boards. It would require more board members who understand talent management and are concerned about the societal impact of corporations. Another effective change would be to have a board membership that is dominated by strong, independent directors.

some CEOs make too much in your opinion, and in mine. So do most athletes and entertainers. The difference is that a CEO is making money for the shareholders and employees whereas the jocks and Hollywood types are only making themselves rich.

The difference is the CEO is determining his own pay. Athletes and entertainers pay is determined by the owner of the teams or CEO's of the entertainment industry. But I do agree they are all over paid.

A Board of Directors set the CEO's pay.

The board is filled with other Ceos who also want raises.

There are some but they have a bigger obligation to the stockholders.

Most stock holders aren't paying they much attention to CEO pay. They would only notice if the stock really tanks.

 

[Papageorgio]

some CEOs make too much in your opinion, and in mine. So do most athletes and entertainers. The difference is that a CEO is making money for the shareholders and employees whereas the jocks and Hollywood types are only making themselves rich.

The difference is the CEO is determining his own pay. Athletes and entertainers pay is determined by the owner of the teams or CEO's of the entertainment industry. But I do agree they are all over paid.

A Board of Directors set the CEO's pay.

The board is filled with other Ceos who also want raises.

There are some but they have a bigger obligation to the stockholders.

Most stock holders aren't paying they much attention to CEO pay. They would only notice if the stock really tanks.

Most board members have a vested interest in the companies that they sit. I'm not going to keep a CEO that is going to hurt the stocks. That's my money I'll lose.

 

[Brain357]

The difference is the CEO is determining his own pay. Athletes and entertainers pay is determined by the owner of the teams or CEO's of the entertainment industry. But I do agree they are all over paid.

A Board of Directors set the CEO's pay.

The board is filled with other Ceos who also want raises.

There are some but they have a bigger obligation to the stockholders.

Most stock holders aren't paying they much attention to CEO pay. They would only notice if the stock really tanks.

Most board members have a vested interest in the companies that they sit. I'm not going to keep a CEO that is going to hurt the stocks. That's my money I'll lose.

But most board members are also CEO's and have a vested interest in CEO pay increasing. Things really have to go bad for a CEO to get a pay cut or be fired.

 

[Markle]

Obviously they do. They are the ones who get laid off.

No, no, no, that's only if you have a system where the worker is paid whether or not the company is doing well. If they work, they get paid.

If the worker is to share in the profits, then they share in the losses by paying the company to keep them going. That way, no one gets laid off! What a deal!

 

[Papageorgio]

A Board of Directors set the CEO's pay.

The board is filled with other Ceos who also want raises.

There are some but they have a bigger obligation to the stockholders.

Most stock holders aren't paying they much attention to CEO pay. They would only notice if the stock really tanks.

Most board members have a vested interest in the companies that they sit. I'm not going to keep a CEO that is going to hurt the stocks. That's my money I'll lose.

But most board members are also CEO's and have a vested interest in CEO pay increasing. Things really have to go bad for a CEO to get a pay cut or be fired.

CEOs get fire all the time, they have a bad year maybe two and they are done. The average CEO is 55 and is replaced in under five years.

 

[Markle]

Is the worker choosing to cut hours or the employer? Lots of companies use part time and temporary workers to avoid full time pay.

Wrong again my good friend.

Companies have to opt for part-time workers in order to avoid all the additional costs incurred by mandated Obamacare. Very small companies also opt for part-time or delay hiring workers to avoid reaching 50 employees.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A Board of Directors set the CEO's pay.

The board is filled with other Ceos who also want raises.

There are some but they have a bigger obligation to the stockholders.

Most stock holders aren't paying they much attention to CEO pay. They would only notice if the stock really tanks.

Most board members have a vested interest in the companies that they sit. I'm not going to keep a CEO that is going to hurt the stocks. That's my money I'll lose.

But most board members are also CEO's and have a vested interest in CEO pay increasing. Things really have to go bad for a CEO to get a pay cut or be fired.

One recent study of C.E.O. tenure found that the percentage of forced turnover tripled between 1970 and 2006, and another study concluded that boards of directors now “aggressively fire C.E.O.s for poor industry-adjusted performance.” In addition, the average duration of a C.E.O.’s tenure has fallen. In 1984, thirty-five per cent of C.E.O.s had been in the job for ten years or more; in 2000, only fifteen per cent had. By 2009, according to one study, average tenure at the world’s biggest companies had fallen to around six years. (It has rebounded some since, because C.E.O.s are, naturally, less likely to be fired when corporate profits are healthy.)

Why C.E.O.s Are Getting Fired More

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

some CEOs make too much in your opinion, and in mine. So do most athletes and entertainers. The difference is that a CEO is making money for the shareholders and employees whereas the jocks and Hollywood types are only making themselves rich.

The difference is the CEO is determining his own pay. Athletes and entertainers pay is determined by the owner of the teams or CEO's of the entertainment industry. But I do agree they are all over paid.

A Board of Directors set the CEO's pay.

The board is filled with other Ceos who also want raises.

There are some but they have a bigger obligation to the stockholders.

Most stock holders aren't paying they much attention to CEO pay. They would only notice if the stock really tanks.

If that's the case then they are in the wrong investment.

If you have $400,000 tied up in a company and they drop 1% in growth, trust me, you're going to notice.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well how does one reduce pay inequity?

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage competes favorably with the cost of social services.

A fifteen dollar minimum wage will end pay inequity?

It will reduce pay inequality to that extent.

Social services pays out about fourteen dollars an hour by comparison.

There is no reason to subsidize the rich through underpayment of minimum wages.

We are not subsidizing the rich, we are subsidizing the poor. So we increase minimum wage, and instead of the lowlifes working 30 hours a week, they drop down to 20 hours a week to keep their benefits. What was accomplished except allowing the lowlife to work less hours?

Is the worker choosing to cut hours or the employer? Lots of companies use part time and temporary workers to avoid full time pay.

I think we need to get back to full time workers making significantly more than part time and welfare. That creates more pride and incentive to work.

It would have to be a hell of a lot more to make up for the government goodies loss.

So let's say you work in one of those liberal areas that took a huge minimum wage increase. Your new hourly wage is $7.50 more an hour than you used to make. But you are also getting $300.00 a month in food stamps.

Running the numbers, that means you would have to work 40 hours for free to break even on your food stamp loss. So not only do you lose your food stamps, but you work the first week of every month for nothing. Are you going to do that?

 

[Brain357]

Is the worker choosing to cut hours or the employer? Lots of companies use part time and temporary workers to avoid full time pay.

Wrong again my good friend.

Companies have to opt for part-time workers in order to avoid all the additional costs incurred by mandated Obamacare. Very small companies also opt for part-time or delay hiring workers to avoid reaching 50 employees.

Right so the company is choosing.

 

[Brain357]

The board is filled with other Ceos who also want raises.

There are some but they have a bigger obligation to the stockholders.

Most stock holders aren't paying they much attention to CEO pay. They would only notice if the stock really tanks.

Most board members have a vested interest in the companies that they sit. I'm not going to keep a CEO that is going to hurt the stocks. That's my money I'll lose.

But most board members are also CEO's and have a vested interest in CEO pay increasing. Things really have to go bad for a CEO to get a pay cut or be fired.

One recent study of C.E.O. tenure found that the percentage of forced turnover tripled between 1970 and 2006, and another study concluded that boards of directors now “aggressively fire C.E.O.s for poor industry-adjusted performance.” In addition, the average duration of a C.E.O.’s tenure has fallen. In 1984, thirty-five per cent of C.E.O.s had been in the job for ten years or more; in 2000, only fifteen per cent had. By 2009, according to one study, average tenure at the world’s biggest companies had fallen to around six years. (It has rebounded some since, because C.E.O.s are, naturally, less likely to be fired when corporate profits are healthy.)

Why C.E.O.s Are Getting Fired More

6 years at that pay is a fortune.

 

[Brain357]

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage competes favorably with the cost of social services.

A fifteen dollar minimum wage will end pay inequity?

It will reduce pay inequality to that extent.

Social services pays out about fourteen dollars an hour by comparison.

There is no reason to subsidize the rich through underpayment of minimum wages.

We are not subsidizing the rich, we are subsidizing the poor. So we increase minimum wage, and instead of the lowlifes working 30 hours a week, they drop down to 20 hours a week to keep their benefits. What was accomplished except allowing the lowlife to work less hours?

Is the worker choosing to cut hours or the employer? Lots of companies use part time and temporary workers to avoid full time pay.

I think we need to get back to full time workers making significantly more than part time and welfare. That creates more pride and incentive to work.

It would have to be a hell of a lot more to make up for the government goodies loss.

So let's say you work in one of those liberal areas that took a huge minimum wage increase. Your new hourly wage is $7.50 more an hour than you used to make. But you are also getting $300.00 a month in food stamps.

Running the numbers, that means you would have to work 40 hours for free to break even on your food stamp loss. So not only do you lose your food stamps, but you work the first week of every month for nothing. Are you going to do that?

I think if the job climate improves it would be wise to cut back on welfare for those able to work.

 

[Brain357]

Looks like tenure increasing in recent years.

Equilar | CEO Tenure Has Increased Nearly One Full Year Since 2005