Union Membership and Inequality

T

ThickStemz

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Oh godammit. Blame everybody but the perpetrator. Blame the student at Trump University for being taken in by the fraud. Blame the consumer for over-payed CEO's. @ThickStemz you are incredibly dense and uninformed. Once again you are lazy and wrong.

A major study of 1500 large companies in the US found performance is negatively correlated to CEO pay. In other words, the more a CEO is payed, the worse the company does. This has been noted several other times in other studies but the link to the abstract below cites a study with a large enough sample set that there can be no doubt about the result. Reason for this low performance? My take on it is that boards of directors are stuffed with cronies and butt buddies -- so-called elite businessmen -- and they are happy to pay each other wacked out high salaries then head to the golf course. Its not the consumer or the worker at fault for poor management and oversight.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1572085
Abstract:
We find evidence that Chief Executive Officer (CEO) pay is negatively related to future stock returns for periods up to three years after sorting on pay. For example, firms that pay their CEOs in the top ten percent of excess pay earn negative abnormal returns over the next three years of approximately -8%. The effect is stronger for CEOs who receive higher incentive pay relative to their peers and stronger for CEOs with greater tenure. Our results appear to be driven by high-pay related CEO overconfidence that leads to shareholder wealth losses from activities such as overinvestment and value-destroying mergers and acquisitions

The Highest-Paid CEOs Are The Worst Performers, New Study Says
http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/06/16/the-highest-paid-ceos-are-the-worst-performers-new-study-says/#2f83bf8f293a

Cooper and two professors, one at Purdue and the other at the University of Cambridge, have studied a large data set of the 1,500 companies with the biggest market caps, supplied by a firm called Execucomp. They also looked at pay and company performance in three-year periods over a relatively long time span, from 1994-2013, and compared what are known as firms’ “abnormal” performance, meaning a company’s revenues and profits as compared with like companies in their fields. They were startled to find that the more CEOs got paid, the worse their companies did.

the study shows that as a group, the companies run by the CEOS who were paid at the top 10% of the scale, had the worst performance. How much worse? The firms returned 10% less to their shareholders than did their industry peers.

Wall Street is its own union shop and the ticket into that union is most often an inheritance from parents into that country club. They take care of their own whether they earn it or not. Sounds like featherbedding to me. This practice among union workers is rightly scorned but the real problem lies at the top.
Click to expand...
I never said all CEOs did a good job and that you could make one better by merely paying higher amounts to them.

What I did say was that the best in the field are worth every penny they make.

I suppose the best CEOs would opt to reinvest the extra 3 million dollars than to split it up between him and his other executive officers.

I hadn't heard about that study before now, but it makes sense. A CEO that would push to be given large sums that aren't tied to performance likely do not have the best interest of the company, or its people in mind.

I'm always amazed at the straw men you bunch build out of what I say.
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
ThickStemz said:
I never said all CEOs did a good job and that you could make one better by merely paying higher amounts to them.

What I did say was that the best in the field are worth every penny they make.

I suppose the best CEOs would opt to reinvest the extra 3 million dollars than to split it up between him and his other executive officers.

I hadn't heard about that study before now, but it makes sense. A CEO that would push to be given large sums that aren't tied to performance likely do not have the best interest of the company, or its people in mind.

I'm always amazed at the straw men you bunch build out of what I say.
Click to expand...
Maybe the CEO's getting the most pay are working for companies that are not doing well. If your company is in trouble the thing that would make the most sense is to hire the best you can find at a competititve salary. Comparatively these companies may not do as well as companies that are not in difficulty.

The important thing here is that it isnt taxpayers money they are spending. If you compare CEO's to politicians the incompetence, waste, and inefficiency is on the politicians side hands down!!
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ThickStemz said:
I never said all CEOs did a good job and that you could make one better by merely paying higher amounts to them.

What I did say was that the best in the field are worth every penny they make.

I suppose the best CEOs would opt to reinvest the extra 3 million dollars than to split it up between him and his other executive officers.

I hadn't heard about that study before now, but it makes sense. A CEO that would push to be given large sums that aren't tied to performance likely do not have the best interest of the company, or its people in mind.

I'm always amazed at the straw men you bunch build out of what I say.
Click to expand...
Top pay is wasted on CEOs. You are lost in the fucked up ideology they use to justify it. Of course you wouldn't look elsewhere for information easily available, you don't question. OK, I'm going to put you back on ignore.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
You should share some examples while you define who exactly you mean by "you bunch". I'm curious to know just how big your ego is, since you have been going around saying you're college educated and not a sock puppet.
Click to expand...
he also totally didn't suck dick for heroin, steal from his parents, get molested as a kid, and say it should be OK to fuck children and dogs and farm animals either.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Top pay is wasted on CEOs. You are lost in the fucked up ideology they use to justify it. Of course you wouldn't look elsewhere for information easily available, you don't question. OK, I'm going to put you back on ignore.
Click to expand...
Some kinds of stupid are so aggressive that there's no reasoning with it; best to ignore it.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
tangerinegreen555 said:
I was estimating what they are worth 'every penny of' in ThicknBushy's post.
Click to expand...
I've worked for some pretty big companies. What I've found is that CEO's that are not the company founder or trained by the founder are almost never worth the bonuses they make. If the company has a good workforce, they work around the shit head and manage the managers. Very Dilbertesque. But eventually good workers move on and the company declines in capability. A Fortune 500 CEO would be properly compensated at $500k. It's a demanding job and you want a good person at the helm. Any more than that just attracts predators who will kill and eat the company.

I've also seen how much it costs to fire a predatory CEO. For example, Carly Fiorina, the failed GOP candidate, lost roughly 20 billion dollars in write-downs for a failed merger which ultimately led to her dismissal. It costs a lot to get rid of those shitheads once they get into office. The problem is, the board of directors that hire the losing shithead remains and they usually botch the second hire and the third until they finally get dismissed. So here's my estimate for how much it costs to get rid of shitty upper management once they become entrenched:

1st shitty CEO: 20 billion
2nd shitty CEO: 30 billion
3rd shitty CEO: 5 billion (shareholders lose patience)
BOD is tossed after the third failed CEO and roughly 12 years of corporate losses and company decline. Total cost to refresh the BOD: $55 B

Here is my SWAG at odds that a formerly large and respected company can recovering from this debacle:
Odds that the company will every recover to former prominence: 5%
Odds that the company will get broken up: 80%
Odds that the company will enter bankruptcy, default on loans and pensions: 15%

Unions are not the problem with corporate America. Unions with participation at BOD level are part of the solution.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I've worked for some pretty big companies. What I've found is that CEO's that are not the company founder or trained by the founder are almost never worth the bonuses they make. If the company has a good workforce, they work around the shit head and manage the managers. Very Dilbertesque. But eventually good workers move on and the company declines in capability. A Fortune 500 CEO would be properly compensated at $500k. It's a demanding job and you want a good person at the helm. Any more than that just attracts predators who will kill and eat the company.

I've also seen how much it costs to fire a predatory CEO. For example, Carly Fiorina, the failed GOP candidate, lost roughly 20 billion dollars in write-downs for a failed merger which ultimately led to her dismissal. It costs a lot to get rid of those shitheads once they get into office. The problem is, the board of directors that hire the losing shithead remains and they usually botch the second hire and the third until they finally get dismissed. So here's my estimate for how much it costs to get rid of shitty upper management once they become entrenched:

1st shitty CEO: 20 billion
2nd shitty CEO: 30 billion
3rd shitty CEO: 5 billion (shareholders lose patience)
BOD is tossed after the third failed CEO and roughly 12 years of corporate losses and company decline. Total cost to refresh the BOD: $55 B

Here is my SWAG at odds that a formerly large and respected company can recovering from this debacle:
Odds that the company will every recover to former prominence: 5%
Odds that the company will get broken up: 80%
Odds that the company will enter bankruptcy, default on loans and pensions: 15%

Unions are not the problem with corporate America. Unions with participation at BOD level are part of the solution.
Click to expand...
Do you make posters? This needs to be printed and sent to every shareholder in the country.
 
b4ds33d

b4ds33d

Well-Known Member
2011-2013 i worked contracts as a travel ER RN for a company called HCA. they are one of the largest hospital management companies in the nation. i worked a couple of their hospitals in austin tx and denver co. very large very busy inner-city ERs. the permanent fulltime staff had had no raises in a couple years, due to what they were told was "the economy." being a traveler, i didn't have to attend their meetings, but happened into one as i'd gotten to work early one day and heard their manager give the "no raise this year either" speech as she told them "because the economy" and i felt it was time to say something to these poor understaffed overworked people. i interjected into the meeting that the HCA CEO just had a 40+ million dollar bonus...not including his multimillion dollar salary.
 
b4ds33d

b4ds33d

Well-Known Member
lol does it really matter what happened? because the status quo remained. people are too afraid of what they'll lose by making a stand for what is right. we glorify the person who fights the good fight in media, but in actuality we shit on those people. every day. and because of it, those people are becoming extinct.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
b4ds33d said:
lol does it really matter what happened? because the status quo remained. people are too afraid of what they'll lose by making a stand for what is right. we glorify the person who fights the good fight in media, but in actuality we shit on those people. every day. and because of it, those people are becoming extinct.
Click to expand...
Well was it worth it to you? If nothing came of it one way or the other, what difference does it make in the big picture?
 
b4ds33d

b4ds33d

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Well was it worth it to you? If nothing came of it one way or the other, what difference does it make in the big picture?
Click to expand...
i did it because those people needed to know they were being lied to. they needed to know that in lieu of having enough staff and being paid for their work, that money is going to the ceo. i never said any of it made a difference to the big picture just relating a story about ceos. everyone wants free healthcare, and you might keep this in mind when thinking cutting cost and screwing over the people that will keep you or your loved ones from dying is the same thing. because this is what is happening, cost cutting measures in healthcare are only hurting the workers. they aren't hitting the ones that are screwing us blind.
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
How many billions did the company make due to the CEO??

All those people that didnt get raises had.... JOBS... Fukin evil company!!! Oh the horror!!!
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
How many billions did the company make due to the CEO??

All those people that didnt get raises had.... JOBS... Fukin evil company!!! Oh the horror!!!
Click to expand...
Demand creates jobs, been over that with you a dozen times. Switch out any CEO and the demand is still there. CEO does not create jobs. You should invest in new talking points
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top