With only around 500 billionaires in the country

[Cecilie1200]

Wrong. The countries you call "socialist" are actually largely capitalist. The socialist portion of their economies doesn't work.

Actually it seems to work fine, they are some of the happiest countries in the world.

Yeah, and in case it hasn't occurred to you, WE don't live in those countries precisely because WE would not be happy. If socialism is your cup of tea, go live somewhere socialist. Stop trying to force it on people who don't want it and telling them how "happy" it's going to make them.

Human beings aren't a "one size fits all" scenario. We're not an anthill or a beehive or the Borg Collective. What the hell is it about being an individual that scares you so?

We have socialism here.

Yes we do, and what's happening with that socialism?

Most all of our programs are going broke. We are 18 trillion in the hole and quickly approaching 19 trillion. Half of the people depend partly or entirely on the support of governments.

Back in the 60's and 70's we had communes. Communes were entirely socialist. Some went out to get supplies and necessities for the rest in the commune and others stayed in the commune having babies, smoking pot and watching television if they had one.

After a while, the people supporting the commune grew sick of taking care of everybody else. That's why communes disappeared.

Socialsim has a short fuse. Sure, it may work for a while. It may work 30 years, 60 years, even 100 years. But eventually, it will collapse much like our social programs are.

Well the problem is the rich have gotten lots of breaks and there has been nothing in return. Lots of inequality leads to a stagnant economy, that is where we are now.

No, the rich have the same breaks everyone else has access to. It's not a fault that they have more financial success, and thus more opportunity to access some of those breaks. And once again, there is the "return" of being treated like a cash cow to ravage by people like you.

You keep asserting "inequality causes stagnation" like you think correlation equals causation. Not so.

 

[Brain357]

Actually it seems to work fine, they are some of the happiest countries in the world.

Yeah, and in case it hasn't occurred to you, WE don't live in those countries precisely because WE would not be happy. If socialism is your cup of tea, go live somewhere socialist. Stop trying to force it on people who don't want it and telling them how "happy" it's going to make them.

Human beings aren't a "one size fits all" scenario. We're not an anthill or a beehive or the Borg Collective. What the hell is it about being an individual that scares you so?

We have socialism here.

Yes we do, and what's happening with that socialism?

Most all of our programs are going broke. We are 18 trillion in the hole and quickly approaching 19 trillion. Half of the people depend partly or entirely on the support of governments.

Back in the 60's and 70's we had communes. Communes were entirely socialist. Some went out to get supplies and necessities for the rest in the commune and others stayed in the commune having babies, smoking pot and watching television if they had one.

After a while, the people supporting the commune grew sick of taking care of everybody else. That's why communes disappeared.

Socialsim has a short fuse. Sure, it may work for a while. It may work 30 years, 60 years, even 100 years. But eventually, it will collapse much like our social programs are.

Well the problem is the rich have gotten lots of breaks and there has been nothing in return. Lots of inequality leads to a stagnant economy, that is where we are now.

No, the rich have the same breaks everyone else has access to. It's not a fault that they have more financial success, and thus more opportunity to access some of those breaks. And once again, there is the "return" of being treated like a cash cow to ravage by people like you.

You keep asserting "inequality causes stagnation" like you think correlation equals causation. Not so.

Tax breaks. Taxes for the richest keep declining. Most of them have also had great advantages over normal folks. Just look at the kochs, Waltons and trump.

 

[Brain357]

Actually it seems to work fine, they are some of the happiest countries in the world.

Yeah, and in case it hasn't occurred to you, WE don't live in those countries precisely because WE would not be happy. If socialism is your cup of tea, go live somewhere socialist. Stop trying to force it on people who don't want it and telling them how "happy" it's going to make them.

Human beings aren't a "one size fits all" scenario. We're not an anthill or a beehive or the Borg Collective. What the hell is it about being an individual that scares you so?

We have socialism here.

Yes we do, and what's happening with that socialism?

Most all of our programs are going broke. We are 18 trillion in the hole and quickly approaching 19 trillion. Half of the people depend partly or entirely on the support of governments.

Back in the 60's and 70's we had communes. Communes were entirely socialist. Some went out to get supplies and necessities for the rest in the commune and others stayed in the commune having babies, smoking pot and watching television if they had one.

After a while, the people supporting the commune grew sick of taking care of everybody else. That's why communes disappeared.

Socialsim has a short fuse. Sure, it may work for a while. It may work 30 years, 60 years, even 100 years. But eventually, it will collapse much like our social programs are.

Well the problem is the rich have gotten lots of breaks and there has been nothing in return. Lots of inequality leads to a stagnant economy, that is where we are now.

No, the rich have the same breaks everyone else has access to. It's not a fault that they have more financial success, and thus more opportunity to access some of those breaks. And once again, there is the "return" of being treated like a cash cow to ravage by people like you.

You keep asserting "inequality causes stagnation" like you think correlation equals causation. Not so.

You are a fool if you think it doesn't slow the economy.
Income inequality hurts economic growth, researchers say

The paper by Barry Z. Cynamon and Steven M. Fazzari, economists working with the Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government and Public Policy at Washington University in St. Louis, says that stagnant income for the “bottom 95 percent” of wage earners makes it impossible for them to consume as they did in the years before the downturn.

Consumer spending, which drives 70 percent of the U.S. economy, dropped sharply during the recession. And while it has picked back up in the years since for the top 5 percent of wage earners — which the Census Bureau defines as households making more than $166,000 a year — “there is no evidence of a recovery whatsoever for the bottom 95 percent,” Fazzari said.

 

[Brain357]

Actually it seems to work fine, they are some of the happiest countries in the world.

Yeah, and in case it hasn't occurred to you, WE don't live in those countries precisely because WE would not be happy. If socialism is your cup of tea, go live somewhere socialist. Stop trying to force it on people who don't want it and telling them how "happy" it's going to make them.

Human beings aren't a "one size fits all" scenario. We're not an anthill or a beehive or the Borg Collective. What the hell is it about being an individual that scares you so?

We have socialism here.

Yes we do, and what's happening with that socialism?

Most all of our programs are going broke. We are 18 trillion in the hole and quickly approaching 19 trillion. Half of the people depend partly or entirely on the support of governments.

Back in the 60's and 70's we had communes. Communes were entirely socialist. Some went out to get supplies and necessities for the rest in the commune and others stayed in the commune having babies, smoking pot and watching television if they had one.

After a while, the people supporting the commune grew sick of taking care of everybody else. That's why communes disappeared.

Socialsim has a short fuse. Sure, it may work for a while. It may work 30 years, 60 years, even 100 years. But eventually, it will collapse much like our social programs are.

Well the problem is the rich have gotten lots of breaks and there has been nothing in return. Lots of inequality leads to a stagnant economy, that is where we are now.

No, the rich have the same breaks everyone else has access to. It's not a fault that they have more financial success, and thus more opportunity to access some of those breaks. And once again, there is the "return" of being treated like a cash cow to ravage by people like you.

You keep asserting "inequality causes stagnation" like you think correlation equals causation. Not so.

S&P: Income inequality slowing economy


“At extreme levels, income inequality can harm sustained economic growth over long periods. The U.S. is approaching that threshold,” the agency warned.

Tackling economic inequality has become a common refrain for Democrats and the White House ahead of the midterm election. But S&P cautioned against extreme policy steps to rectify the situation. Changes to the tax code to close the gap between the rich and the poor could have “do more damage than good” by reducing incentive to work and hire, the agency warned. However, S&P did say that changes in federal tax policy over the years has exacerbated inequality, as tax rates for top earners have fallen faster than rates for average Americans.

 

[Brain357]

Actually it seems to work fine, they are some of the happiest countries in the world.

Yeah, and in case it hasn't occurred to you, WE don't live in those countries precisely because WE would not be happy. If socialism is your cup of tea, go live somewhere socialist. Stop trying to force it on people who don't want it and telling them how "happy" it's going to make them.

Human beings aren't a "one size fits all" scenario. We're not an anthill or a beehive or the Borg Collective. What the hell is it about being an individual that scares you so?

We have socialism here.

Yes we do, and what's happening with that socialism?

Most all of our programs are going broke. We are 18 trillion in the hole and quickly approaching 19 trillion. Half of the people depend partly or entirely on the support of governments.

Back in the 60's and 70's we had communes. Communes were entirely socialist. Some went out to get supplies and necessities for the rest in the commune and others stayed in the commune having babies, smoking pot and watching television if they had one.

After a while, the people supporting the commune grew sick of taking care of everybody else. That's why communes disappeared.

Socialsim has a short fuse. Sure, it may work for a while. It may work 30 years, 60 years, even 100 years. But eventually, it will collapse much like our social programs are.

Well the problem is the rich have gotten lots of breaks and there has been nothing in return. Lots of inequality leads to a stagnant economy, that is where we are now.

No, the rich have the same breaks everyone else has access to. It's not a fault that they have more financial success, and thus more opportunity to access some of those breaks. And once again, there is the "return" of being treated like a cash cow to ravage by people like you.

You keep asserting "inequality causes stagnation" like you think correlation equals causation. Not so.

In a new report, Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality: A Global Perspective, the IMF aims to show why policymakers need to focus more on the poor and the middle class. The report determined that income inequality and income distribution matter for growth and its sustainability in a country.

To blame for the rising inequalities are a few different factors, which differ whether in emerging markets or developed economies. Technological progress that led to higher salaries and resulted in some labor market declines, is a big factor in both types of economies and globalization has also reinforced the trend.

It also found that when the income share of the top 20% increases, the country’s GDP declines over the medium term. On the other hand, GDP growth is associated with income increase among the poorest 20% of the population.

IMF study on income inequality - Business Insider

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The very poor? 47% of Americans pay no income taxes at all. Are they all very poor?

Yes dear, when compared and contrasted to the one percent who own ninety percent of the wealth.

So poor people are determined by how much the wealthy have?

Is CEO pay determined how much wealth the firm has?

Not really. It's usually determined by demand.

If there is a CEO renown for turning companies around or increasing sales by let's say 40%, then businesses compete for that CEO. That's how they get the money that they do.

Let's say I have a business and I know CEO X is available for a job. I calculate he or she can bring in 9 million more into my company, then if that CEO is asking 4 million a year to work, it's worth it for me to pay that money.

If I don't want to pay that CEO that kind of money, my competition will, so the choice is mine.

Lots of contract jobs work like that. It explains why a famous actor or actress gets 10 million dollars for just one movie. If that entertainer is famous enough to attract millions of movie goers, it's worth the 10 million. Same with sports figures and the same with musicians.

No it is not based on performance or demand. The board which is filled with current and former ceos are giving raises as payback or because they want a future raise.

The actor is actually performance based. If movies sell they get paid a lot. Studies have shown this isn't true with ceos.

No, it's not always true with all contract jobs.

If a pitcher signs a three year contract for 14 million dollars, and he ends up not pitching that good, he still gets his 14 million dollars. If a famous band signs a 10 million dollar contract with a big league recording company, and the the music doesn't sell, they still get their 10 million dollars.

The best one was Hillary getting an 8 million dollar contract for a book she wrote, and it only sold a couple thousand copies.

When it comes to CEO's or business, I think you watch too many movies. How a CEO performs is reflected by the growth of the company. Nobody is going to keep a CEO that isn't performing because the stock holders will retaliate or sell their stocks.

 

[Brain357]

Yes dear, when compared and contrasted to the one percent who own ninety percent of the wealth.

So poor people are determined by how much the wealthy have?

Is CEO pay determined how much wealth the firm has?

Not really. It's usually determined by demand.

If there is a CEO renown for turning companies around or increasing sales by let's say 40%, then businesses compete for that CEO. That's how they get the money that they do.

Let's say I have a business and I know CEO X is available for a job. I calculate he or she can bring in 9 million more into my company, then if that CEO is asking 4 million a year to work, it's worth it for me to pay that money.

If I don't want to pay that CEO that kind of money, my competition will, so the choice is mine.

Lots of contract jobs work like that. It explains why a famous actor or actress gets 10 million dollars for just one movie. If that entertainer is famous enough to attract millions of movie goers, it's worth the 10 million. Same with sports figures and the same with musicians.

No it is not based on performance or demand. The board which is filled with current and former ceos are giving raises as payback or because they want a future raise.

The actor is actually performance based. If movies sell they get paid a lot. Studies have shown this isn't true with ceos.

No, it's not always true with all contract jobs.

If a pitcher signs a three year contract for 14 million dollars, and he ends up not pitching that good, he still gets his 14 million dollars. If a famous band signs a 10 million dollar contract with a big league recording company, and the the music doesn't sell, they still get their 10 million dollars.

The best one was Hillary getting an 8 million dollar contract for a book she wrote, and it only sold a couple thousand copies.

When it comes to CEO's or business, I think you watch too many movies. How a CEO performs is reflected by the growth of the company. Nobody is going to keep a CEO that isn't performing because the stock holders will retaliate or sell their stocks.

I think you believe everything the rich tell you to believe.

But it doesn’t always work that way in practice, as Bloomberg Businessweekillustrates in this bookmark-worthy graphic. Using data from executive compensation firm Equilar, it ranks the pay of 200 highly compensated CEOs and plots it against their company’s stock performance. The resulting pattern is almost completely random, as if someone fired bird shot at a wall. “The comparison makes it look as if there is zero relationship between pay and performance,” note writers Eric Chemi and Ariana Giorgi. (Bold is theirs. Check out the Businessweek post for an interactive version of the chart.)

CEO pay for performance: This graph shows why it's a sham.

 

[Brain357]

Yes dear, when compared and contrasted to the one percent who own ninety percent of the wealth.

So poor people are determined by how much the wealthy have?

Is CEO pay determined how much wealth the firm has?

Not really. It's usually determined by demand.

If there is a CEO renown for turning companies around or increasing sales by let's say 40%, then businesses compete for that CEO. That's how they get the money that they do.

Let's say I have a business and I know CEO X is available for a job. I calculate he or she can bring in 9 million more into my company, then if that CEO is asking 4 million a year to work, it's worth it for me to pay that money.

If I don't want to pay that CEO that kind of money, my competition will, so the choice is mine.

Lots of contract jobs work like that. It explains why a famous actor or actress gets 10 million dollars for just one movie. If that entertainer is famous enough to attract millions of movie goers, it's worth the 10 million. Same with sports figures and the same with musicians.

No it is not based on performance or demand. The board which is filled with current and former ceos are giving raises as payback or because they want a future raise.

The actor is actually performance based. If movies sell they get paid a lot. Studies have shown this isn't true with ceos.

No, it's not always true with all contract jobs.

If a pitcher signs a three year contract for 14 million dollars, and he ends up not pitching that good, he still gets his 14 million dollars. If a famous band signs a 10 million dollar contract with a big league recording company, and the the music doesn't sell, they still get their 10 million dollars.

The best one was Hillary getting an 8 million dollar contract for a book she wrote, and it only sold a couple thousand copies.

When it comes to CEO's or business, I think you watch too many movies. How a CEO performs is reflected by the growth of the company. Nobody is going to keep a CEO that isn't performing because the stock holders will retaliate or sell their stocks.

The Highest-Paid CEOs Are The Worst Performers, New Study Says

Across the board, the more CEOs get paid, the worse their companies do over the next three years, according to extensive new research. This is true whether they’re CEOs at the highest end of the pay spectrum or the lowest. “The more CEOs are paid, the worse the firm does over the next three years, as far as stock performance and even accounting performance,” says one of the authors of the study, Michael Cooper of the University of Utah’s David Eccles School of Business.

The paper also found that the longer CEOs were at the helm, the more pronounced was their firms’ poor performance. Cooper says this is because those CEOs are able to appoint more allies to their boards, and those board members are likely to go along with the bosses’ bad decisions. “For the high-pay CEOs, with high overconfidence and high tenure, the effects are just crazy,” he says. They return 22% worse in shareholder value over three years as compared to their peers.

 

[Brain357]

Yes dear, when compared and contrasted to the one percent who own ninety percent of the wealth.

So poor people are determined by how much the wealthy have?

Is CEO pay determined how much wealth the firm has?

Not really. It's usually determined by demand.

If there is a CEO renown for turning companies around or increasing sales by let's say 40%, then businesses compete for that CEO. That's how they get the money that they do.

Let's say I have a business and I know CEO X is available for a job. I calculate he or she can bring in 9 million more into my company, then if that CEO is asking 4 million a year to work, it's worth it for me to pay that money.

If I don't want to pay that CEO that kind of money, my competition will, so the choice is mine.

Lots of contract jobs work like that. It explains why a famous actor or actress gets 10 million dollars for just one movie. If that entertainer is famous enough to attract millions of movie goers, it's worth the 10 million. Same with sports figures and the same with musicians.

No it is not based on performance or demand. The board which is filled with current and former ceos are giving raises as payback or because they want a future raise.

The actor is actually performance based. If movies sell they get paid a lot. Studies have shown this isn't true with ceos.

No, it's not always true with all contract jobs.

If a pitcher signs a three year contract for 14 million dollars, and he ends up not pitching that good, he still gets his 14 million dollars. If a famous band signs a 10 million dollar contract with a big league recording company, and the the music doesn't sell, they still get their 10 million dollars.

The best one was Hillary getting an 8 million dollar contract for a book she wrote, and it only sold a couple thousand copies.

When it comes to CEO's or business, I think you watch too many movies. How a CEO performs is reflected by the growth of the company. Nobody is going to keep a CEO that isn't performing because the stock holders will retaliate or sell their stocks.

Nobody?
What do Disney, AT&T, Exxon, and Verizon have in common? Based on economic performance and what they paid their CEOs from 1991-2002, a new academic study argues that all these firms were headed by CEOs who were paid too much.

These firms, say the researchers, are among a group of companies headed by CEOs whose pay is negatively related to job skill: The CEOs seem to be rewarded — in most cases, quite amply — for their bad performance. Disney's Michael Eisner, for example, was paid $38 million above the industry average when for three out of six years the company's performance actually declined in relation to other firms in the entertainment industry.


One theory is that such CEOs are overpaid because they have too much influence over the board that should be monitoring them on shareholders' behalf and too much influence over the committee that sets their pay. Thus, CEOs are effectively able to set their own pay and distort their compensation contract. In this view, CEO pay is the product of badly functioning corporate governance.

When CEOs Are Paid for Bad Performance

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So poor people are determined by how much the wealthy have?

Is CEO pay determined how much wealth the firm has?

Not really. It's usually determined by demand.

If there is a CEO renown for turning companies around or increasing sales by let's say 40%, then businesses compete for that CEO. That's how they get the money that they do.

Let's say I have a business and I know CEO X is available for a job. I calculate he or she can bring in 9 million more into my company, then if that CEO is asking 4 million a year to work, it's worth it for me to pay that money.

If I don't want to pay that CEO that kind of money, my competition will, so the choice is mine.

Lots of contract jobs work like that. It explains why a famous actor or actress gets 10 million dollars for just one movie. If that entertainer is famous enough to attract millions of movie goers, it's worth the 10 million. Same with sports figures and the same with musicians.

No it is not based on performance or demand. The board which is filled with current and former ceos are giving raises as payback or because they want a future raise.

The actor is actually performance based. If movies sell they get paid a lot. Studies have shown this isn't true with ceos.

No, it's not always true with all contract jobs.

If a pitcher signs a three year contract for 14 million dollars, and he ends up not pitching that good, he still gets his 14 million dollars. If a famous band signs a 10 million dollar contract with a big league recording company, and the the music doesn't sell, they still get their 10 million dollars.

The best one was Hillary getting an 8 million dollar contract for a book she wrote, and it only sold a couple thousand copies.

When it comes to CEO's or business, I think you watch too many movies. How a CEO performs is reflected by the growth of the company. Nobody is going to keep a CEO that isn't performing because the stock holders will retaliate or sell their stocks.

Nobody?
What do Disney, AT&T, Exxon, and Verizon have in common? Based on economic performance and what they paid their CEOs from 1991-2002, a new academic study argues that all these firms were headed by CEOs who were paid too much.

These firms, say the researchers, are among a group of companies headed by CEOs whose pay is negatively related to job skill: The CEOs seem to be rewarded — in most cases, quite amply — for their bad performance. Disney's Michael Eisner, for example, was paid $38 million above the industry average when for three out of six years the company's performance actually declined in relation to other firms in the entertainment industry.


One theory is that such CEOs are overpaid because they have too much influence over the board that should be monitoring them on shareholders' behalf and too much influence over the committee that sets their pay. Thus, CEOs are effectively able to set their own pay and distort their compensation contract. In this view, CEO pay is the product of badly functioning corporate governance.

When CEOs Are Paid for Bad Performance

As I stated, not all CEO's are going to perform as they did in the past. Is it their fault? Who knows. They can be a good CEO, but incapable of controlling the market they are in. In some cases, there is only so much you can do.

As I mentioned, just like actors and actresses, just like sports figures, just like musicians or talk show hosts, not all are going to be successful all the time. CEO's are no different.

But the difference is that stock holders control the company. They control the board and they control who is on that board. If they don't perform well, then the stock holders vote them off the board. If the company still performs poorly, then the stock holders sell out.

A list of top paid CEO"s and their performance:

CEO Pay vs Performance - WSJ.com

 

[Brain357]

Is CEO pay determined how much wealth the firm has?

Not really. It's usually determined by demand.

If there is a CEO renown for turning companies around or increasing sales by let's say 40%, then businesses compete for that CEO. That's how they get the money that they do.

Let's say I have a business and I know CEO X is available for a job. I calculate he or she can bring in 9 million more into my company, then if that CEO is asking 4 million a year to work, it's worth it for me to pay that money.

If I don't want to pay that CEO that kind of money, my competition will, so the choice is mine.

Lots of contract jobs work like that. It explains why a famous actor or actress gets 10 million dollars for just one movie. If that entertainer is famous enough to attract millions of movie goers, it's worth the 10 million. Same with sports figures and the same with musicians.

No it is not based on performance or demand. The board which is filled with current and former ceos are giving raises as payback or because they want a future raise.

The actor is actually performance based. If movies sell they get paid a lot. Studies have shown this isn't true with ceos.

No, it's not always true with all contract jobs.

If a pitcher signs a three year contract for 14 million dollars, and he ends up not pitching that good, he still gets his 14 million dollars. If a famous band signs a 10 million dollar contract with a big league recording company, and the the music doesn't sell, they still get their 10 million dollars.

The best one was Hillary getting an 8 million dollar contract for a book she wrote, and it only sold a couple thousand copies.

When it comes to CEO's or business, I think you watch too many movies. How a CEO performs is reflected by the growth of the company. Nobody is going to keep a CEO that isn't performing because the stock holders will retaliate or sell their stocks.

Nobody?
What do Disney, AT&T, Exxon, and Verizon have in common? Based on economic performance and what they paid their CEOs from 1991-2002, a new academic study argues that all these firms were headed by CEOs who were paid too much.

These firms, say the researchers, are among a group of companies headed by CEOs whose pay is negatively related to job skill: The CEOs seem to be rewarded — in most cases, quite amply — for their bad performance. Disney's Michael Eisner, for example, was paid $38 million above the industry average when for three out of six years the company's performance actually declined in relation to other firms in the entertainment industry.


One theory is that such CEOs are overpaid because they have too much influence over the board that should be monitoring them on shareholders' behalf and too much influence over the committee that sets their pay. Thus, CEOs are effectively able to set their own pay and distort their compensation contract. In this view, CEO pay is the product of badly functioning corporate governance.

When CEOs Are Paid for Bad Performance

As I stated, not all CEO's are going to perform as they did in the past. Is it their fault? Who knows. They can be a good CEO, but incapable of controlling the market they are in. In some cases, there is only so much you can do.

As I mentioned, just like actors and actresses, just like sports figures, just like musicians or talk show hosts, not all are going to be successful all the time. CEO's are no different.

But the difference is that stock holders control the company. They control the board and they control who is on that board. If they don't perform well, then the stock holders vote them off the board. If the company still performs poorly, then the stock holders sell out.

A list of top paid CEO"s and their performance:

CEO Pay vs Performance - WSJ.com

I own many stocks and have no control over any company. You really live in fantasy land.

 

[Brain357]

Is CEO pay determined how much wealth the firm has?

Not really. It's usually determined by demand.

If there is a CEO renown for turning companies around or increasing sales by let's say 40%, then businesses compete for that CEO. That's how they get the money that they do.

Let's say I have a business and I know CEO X is available for a job. I calculate he or she can bring in 9 million more into my company, then if that CEO is asking 4 million a year to work, it's worth it for me to pay that money.

If I don't want to pay that CEO that kind of money, my competition will, so the choice is mine.

Lots of contract jobs work like that. It explains why a famous actor or actress gets 10 million dollars for just one movie. If that entertainer is famous enough to attract millions of movie goers, it's worth the 10 million. Same with sports figures and the same with musicians.

No it is not based on performance or demand. The board which is filled with current and former ceos are giving raises as payback or because they want a future raise.

The actor is actually performance based. If movies sell they get paid a lot. Studies have shown this isn't true with ceos.

No, it's not always true with all contract jobs.

If a pitcher signs a three year contract for 14 million dollars, and he ends up not pitching that good, he still gets his 14 million dollars. If a famous band signs a 10 million dollar contract with a big league recording company, and the the music doesn't sell, they still get their 10 million dollars.

The best one was Hillary getting an 8 million dollar contract for a book she wrote, and it only sold a couple thousand copies.

When it comes to CEO's or business, I think you watch too many movies. How a CEO performs is reflected by the growth of the company. Nobody is going to keep a CEO that isn't performing because the stock holders will retaliate or sell their stocks.

Nobody?
What do Disney, AT&T, Exxon, and Verizon have in common? Based on economic performance and what they paid their CEOs from 1991-2002, a new academic study argues that all these firms were headed by CEOs who were paid too much.

These firms, say the researchers, are among a group of companies headed by CEOs whose pay is negatively related to job skill: The CEOs seem to be rewarded — in most cases, quite amply — for their bad performance. Disney's Michael Eisner, for example, was paid $38 million above the industry average when for three out of six years the company's performance actually declined in relation to other firms in the entertainment industry.


One theory is that such CEOs are overpaid because they have too much influence over the board that should be monitoring them on shareholders' behalf and too much influence over the committee that sets their pay. Thus, CEOs are effectively able to set their own pay and distort their compensation contract. In this view, CEO pay is the product of badly functioning corporate governance.

When CEOs Are Paid for Bad Performance

As I stated, not all CEO's are going to perform as they did in the past. Is it their fault? Who knows. They can be a good CEO, but incapable of controlling the market they are in. In some cases, there is only so much you can do.

As I mentioned, just like actors and actresses, just like sports figures, just like musicians or talk show hosts, not all are going to be successful all the time. CEO's are no different.

But the difference is that stock holders control the company. They control the board and they control who is on that board. If they don't perform well, then the stock holders vote them off the board. If the company still performs poorly, then the stock holders sell out.

A list of top paid CEO"s and their performance:

CEO Pay vs Performance - WSJ.com

Executive compensation is increasingly geared toward results, but some CEOs still got big paydays even when their investors didn’t do so well.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Not really. It's usually determined by demand.

If there is a CEO renown for turning companies around or increasing sales by let's say 40%, then businesses compete for that CEO. That's how they get the money that they do.

Let's say I have a business and I know CEO X is available for a job. I calculate he or she can bring in 9 million more into my company, then if that CEO is asking 4 million a year to work, it's worth it for me to pay that money.

If I don't want to pay that CEO that kind of money, my competition will, so the choice is mine.

Lots of contract jobs work like that. It explains why a famous actor or actress gets 10 million dollars for just one movie. If that entertainer is famous enough to attract millions of movie goers, it's worth the 10 million. Same with sports figures and the same with musicians.

No it is not based on performance or demand. The board which is filled with current and former ceos are giving raises as payback or because they want a future raise.

The actor is actually performance based. If movies sell they get paid a lot. Studies have shown this isn't true with ceos.

No, it's not always true with all contract jobs.

If a pitcher signs a three year contract for 14 million dollars, and he ends up not pitching that good, he still gets his 14 million dollars. If a famous band signs a 10 million dollar contract with a big league recording company, and the the music doesn't sell, they still get their 10 million dollars.

The best one was Hillary getting an 8 million dollar contract for a book she wrote, and it only sold a couple thousand copies.

When it comes to CEO's or business, I think you watch too many movies. How a CEO performs is reflected by the growth of the company. Nobody is going to keep a CEO that isn't performing because the stock holders will retaliate or sell their stocks.

Nobody?
What do Disney, AT&T, Exxon, and Verizon have in common? Based on economic performance and what they paid their CEOs from 1991-2002, a new academic study argues that all these firms were headed by CEOs who were paid too much.

These firms, say the researchers, are among a group of companies headed by CEOs whose pay is negatively related to job skill: The CEOs seem to be rewarded — in most cases, quite amply — for their bad performance. Disney's Michael Eisner, for example, was paid $38 million above the industry average when for three out of six years the company's performance actually declined in relation to other firms in the entertainment industry.


One theory is that such CEOs are overpaid because they have too much influence over the board that should be monitoring them on shareholders' behalf and too much influence over the committee that sets their pay. Thus, CEOs are effectively able to set their own pay and distort their compensation contract. In this view, CEO pay is the product of badly functioning corporate governance.

When CEOs Are Paid for Bad Performance

As I stated, not all CEO's are going to perform as they did in the past. Is it their fault? Who knows. They can be a good CEO, but incapable of controlling the market they are in. In some cases, there is only so much you can do.

As I mentioned, just like actors and actresses, just like sports figures, just like musicians or talk show hosts, not all are going to be successful all the time. CEO's are no different.

But the difference is that stock holders control the company. They control the board and they control who is on that board. If they don't perform well, then the stock holders vote them off the board. If the company still performs poorly, then the stock holders sell out.

A list of top paid CEO"s and their performance:

CEO Pay vs Performance - WSJ.com

Executive compensation is increasingly geared toward results, but some CEOs still got big paydays even when their investors didn’t do so well.

Yep, that's the beauty of contract work. Good work if you can get it. If your contract says you get X amount of money win, lose or draw, then you get that money. If a company doesn't want that in their contract, your competitor will put it in his.

 

[Brain357]

No it is not based on performance or demand. The board which is filled with current and former ceos are giving raises as payback or because they want a future raise.

The actor is actually performance based. If movies sell they get paid a lot. Studies have shown this isn't true with ceos.

No, it's not always true with all contract jobs.

If a pitcher signs a three year contract for 14 million dollars, and he ends up not pitching that good, he still gets his 14 million dollars. If a famous band signs a 10 million dollar contract with a big league recording company, and the the music doesn't sell, they still get their 10 million dollars.

The best one was Hillary getting an 8 million dollar contract for a book she wrote, and it only sold a couple thousand copies.

When it comes to CEO's or business, I think you watch too many movies. How a CEO performs is reflected by the growth of the company. Nobody is going to keep a CEO that isn't performing because the stock holders will retaliate or sell their stocks.

Nobody?
What do Disney, AT&T, Exxon, and Verizon have in common? Based on economic performance and what they paid their CEOs from 1991-2002, a new academic study argues that all these firms were headed by CEOs who were paid too much.

These firms, say the researchers, are among a group of companies headed by CEOs whose pay is negatively related to job skill: The CEOs seem to be rewarded — in most cases, quite amply — for their bad performance. Disney's Michael Eisner, for example, was paid $38 million above the industry average when for three out of six years the company's performance actually declined in relation to other firms in the entertainment industry.


One theory is that such CEOs are overpaid because they have too much influence over the board that should be monitoring them on shareholders' behalf and too much influence over the committee that sets their pay. Thus, CEOs are effectively able to set their own pay and distort their compensation contract. In this view, CEO pay is the product of badly functioning corporate governance.

When CEOs Are Paid for Bad Performance

As I stated, not all CEO's are going to perform as they did in the past. Is it their fault? Who knows. They can be a good CEO, but incapable of controlling the market they are in. In some cases, there is only so much you can do.

As I mentioned, just like actors and actresses, just like sports figures, just like musicians or talk show hosts, not all are going to be successful all the time. CEO's are no different.

But the difference is that stock holders control the company. They control the board and they control who is on that board. If they don't perform well, then the stock holders vote them off the board. If the company still performs poorly, then the stock holders sell out.

A list of top paid CEO"s and their performance:

CEO Pay vs Performance - WSJ.com

Executive compensation is increasingly geared toward results, but some CEOs still got big paydays even when their investors didn’t do so well.

Yep, that's the beauty of contract work. Good work if you can get it. If your contract says you get X amount of money win, lose or draw, then you get that money. If a company doesn't want that in their contract, your competitor will put it in his.

Yes those ceos are practically criminals.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, it's not always true with all contract jobs.

If a pitcher signs a three year contract for 14 million dollars, and he ends up not pitching that good, he still gets his 14 million dollars. If a famous band signs a 10 million dollar contract with a big league recording company, and the the music doesn't sell, they still get their 10 million dollars.

The best one was Hillary getting an 8 million dollar contract for a book she wrote, and it only sold a couple thousand copies.

When it comes to CEO's or business, I think you watch too many movies. How a CEO performs is reflected by the growth of the company. Nobody is going to keep a CEO that isn't performing because the stock holders will retaliate or sell their stocks.

Nobody?
What do Disney, AT&T, Exxon, and Verizon have in common? Based on economic performance and what they paid their CEOs from 1991-2002, a new academic study argues that all these firms were headed by CEOs who were paid too much.

These firms, say the researchers, are among a group of companies headed by CEOs whose pay is negatively related to job skill: The CEOs seem to be rewarded — in most cases, quite amply — for their bad performance. Disney's Michael Eisner, for example, was paid $38 million above the industry average when for three out of six years the company's performance actually declined in relation to other firms in the entertainment industry.


One theory is that such CEOs are overpaid because they have too much influence over the board that should be monitoring them on shareholders' behalf and too much influence over the committee that sets their pay. Thus, CEOs are effectively able to set their own pay and distort their compensation contract. In this view, CEO pay is the product of badly functioning corporate governance.

When CEOs Are Paid for Bad Performance

As I stated, not all CEO's are going to perform as they did in the past. Is it their fault? Who knows. They can be a good CEO, but incapable of controlling the market they are in. In some cases, there is only so much you can do.

As I mentioned, just like actors and actresses, just like sports figures, just like musicians or talk show hosts, not all are going to be successful all the time. CEO's are no different.

But the difference is that stock holders control the company. They control the board and they control who is on that board. If they don't perform well, then the stock holders vote them off the board. If the company still performs poorly, then the stock holders sell out.

A list of top paid CEO"s and their performance:

CEO Pay vs Performance - WSJ.com

Executive compensation is increasingly geared toward results, but some CEOs still got big paydays even when their investors didn’t do so well.

Yep, that's the beauty of contract work. Good work if you can get it. If your contract says you get X amount of money win, lose or draw, then you get that money. If a company doesn't want that in their contract, your competitor will put it in his.

Yes those ceos are practically criminals.

Well if that's the way you look at it, so are entertainers and sports figures.

 

[Brain357]

Nobody?
What do Disney, AT&T, Exxon, and Verizon have in common? Based on economic performance and what they paid their CEOs from 1991-2002, a new academic study argues that all these firms were headed by CEOs who were paid too much.

These firms, say the researchers, are among a group of companies headed by CEOs whose pay is negatively related to job skill: The CEOs seem to be rewarded — in most cases, quite amply — for their bad performance. Disney's Michael Eisner, for example, was paid $38 million above the industry average when for three out of six years the company's performance actually declined in relation to other firms in the entertainment industry.


One theory is that such CEOs are overpaid because they have too much influence over the board that should be monitoring them on shareholders' behalf and too much influence over the committee that sets their pay. Thus, CEOs are effectively able to set their own pay and distort their compensation contract. In this view, CEO pay is the product of badly functioning corporate governance.

When CEOs Are Paid for Bad Performance

As I stated, not all CEO's are going to perform as they did in the past. Is it their fault? Who knows. They can be a good CEO, but incapable of controlling the market they are in. In some cases, there is only so much you can do.

As I mentioned, just like actors and actresses, just like sports figures, just like musicians or talk show hosts, not all are going to be successful all the time. CEO's are no different.

But the difference is that stock holders control the company. They control the board and they control who is on that board. If they don't perform well, then the stock holders vote them off the board. If the company still performs poorly, then the stock holders sell out.

A list of top paid CEO"s and their performance:

CEO Pay vs Performance - WSJ.com

Executive compensation is increasingly geared toward results, but some CEOs still got big paydays even when their investors didn’t do so well.

Yep, that's the beauty of contract work. Good work if you can get it. If your contract says you get X amount of money win, lose or draw, then you get that money. If a company doesn't want that in their contract, your competitor will put it in his.

Yes those ceos are practically criminals.

Well if that's the way you look at it, so are entertainers and sports figures.

Entertainers and sports figures are being paid by some ceo. Further proof they are not paid on performance.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

As I stated, not all CEO's are going to perform as they did in the past. Is it their fault? Who knows. They can be a good CEO, but incapable of controlling the market they are in. In some cases, there is only so much you can do.

As I mentioned, just like actors and actresses, just like sports figures, just like musicians or talk show hosts, not all are going to be successful all the time. CEO's are no different.

But the difference is that stock holders control the company. They control the board and they control who is on that board. If they don't perform well, then the stock holders vote them off the board. If the company still performs poorly, then the stock holders sell out.

A list of top paid CEO"s and their performance:

CEO Pay vs Performance - WSJ.com

Executive compensation is increasingly geared toward results, but some CEOs still got big paydays even when their investors didn’t do so well.

Yep, that's the beauty of contract work. Good work if you can get it. If your contract says you get X amount of money win, lose or draw, then you get that money. If a company doesn't want that in their contract, your competitor will put it in his.

Yes those ceos are practically criminals.

Well if that's the way you look at it, so are entertainers and sports figures.

Entertainers and sports figures are being paid by some ceo. Further proof they are not paid on performance.

CEO's don't make those kinds of decisions; management makes those kinds of decisions. Perhaps in Hollywood producers or whoever is in charge of things like that.

 

[Brain357]

Executive compensation is increasingly geared toward results, but some CEOs still got big paydays even when their investors didn’t do so well.

Yep, that's the beauty of contract work. Good work if you can get it. If your contract says you get X amount of money win, lose or draw, then you get that money. If a company doesn't want that in their contract, your competitor will put it in his.

Yes those ceos are practically criminals.

Well if that's the way you look at it, so are entertainers and sports figures.

Entertainers and sports figures are being paid by some ceo. Further proof they are not paid on performance.

CEO's don't make those kinds of decisions; management makes those kinds of decisions. Perhaps in Hollywood producers or whoever is in charge of things like that.

A CEO is involved in paying anyone millions of dollars. Or they are in charge of whoever is doing that. It is his decision to do that, don't be silly.

 

[Indeependent]

Nobody?
What do Disney, AT&T, Exxon, and Verizon have in common? Based on economic performance and what they paid their CEOs from 1991-2002, a new academic study argues that all these firms were headed by CEOs who were paid too much.

These firms, say the researchers, are among a group of companies headed by CEOs whose pay is negatively related to job skill: The CEOs seem to be rewarded — in most cases, quite amply — for their bad performance. Disney's Michael Eisner, for example, was paid $38 million above the industry average when for three out of six years the company's performance actually declined in relation to other firms in the entertainment industry.


One theory is that such CEOs are overpaid because they have too much influence over the board that should be monitoring them on shareholders' behalf and too much influence over the committee that sets their pay. Thus, CEOs are effectively able to set their own pay and distort their compensation contract. In this view, CEO pay is the product of badly functioning corporate governance.

When CEOs Are Paid for Bad Performance

As I stated, not all CEO's are going to perform as they did in the past. Is it their fault? Who knows. They can be a good CEO, but incapable of controlling the market they are in. In some cases, there is only so much you can do.

As I mentioned, just like actors and actresses, just like sports figures, just like musicians or talk show hosts, not all are going to be successful all the time. CEO's are no different.

But the difference is that stock holders control the company. They control the board and they control who is on that board. If they don't perform well, then the stock holders vote them off the board. If the company still performs poorly, then the stock holders sell out.

A list of top paid CEO"s and their performance:

CEO Pay vs Performance - WSJ.com

Executive compensation is increasingly geared toward results, but some CEOs still got big paydays even when their investors didn’t do so well.

Yep, that's the beauty of contract work. Good work if you can get it. If your contract says you get X amount of money win, lose or draw, then you get that money. If a company doesn't want that in their contract, your competitor will put it in his.

Yes those ceos are practically criminals.

Well if that's the way you look at it, so are entertainers and sports figures.

Name me the last time an entertainer or sports figure dumped all of their friends who were working for them because they wanted cheaper business visas.
Corporate scum is scum.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

As I stated, not all CEO's are going to perform as they did in the past. Is it their fault? Who knows. They can be a good CEO, but incapable of controlling the market they are in. In some cases, there is only so much you can do.

As I mentioned, just like actors and actresses, just like sports figures, just like musicians or talk show hosts, not all are going to be successful all the time. CEO's are no different.

But the difference is that stock holders control the company. They control the board and they control who is on that board. If they don't perform well, then the stock holders vote them off the board. If the company still performs poorly, then the stock holders sell out.

A list of top paid CEO"s and their performance:

CEO Pay vs Performance - WSJ.com

Executive compensation is increasingly geared toward results, but some CEOs still got big paydays even when their investors didn’t do so well.

Yep, that's the beauty of contract work. Good work if you can get it. If your contract says you get X amount of money win, lose or draw, then you get that money. If a company doesn't want that in their contract, your competitor will put it in his.

Yes those ceos are practically criminals.

Well if that's the way you look at it, so are entertainers and sports figures.

Name me the last time an entertainer or sports figure dumped all of their friends who were working for them because they wanted cheaper business visas.
Corporate scum is scum.

When was the last time a CEO did?