• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CEOs lay off thousands, rake in millions

So you don't believe that employees should be paid for their work? Should we go back to child labor and slavery? I mean, the profits could be REMARKABLE if we did.

I believe in the right to contract
 
So you don't believe that employees should be paid for their work? Should we go back to child labor and slavery? I mean, the profits could be REMARKABLE if we did.

I'm at a loss for how you think this is a response to anything that anyone has said. That's a huge leap in logic.
 
Last edited:
the top 1% pay 40% of the income tax and practically all of the death tax

they pay more for each dollar of government services received than any other group

and 47% of people don't pay any income tax and those making under about 117,000 a year are essentially net tax consumers-its that income level where someone starts paying more in income taxes than they use in the services paid for by income taxes

Still waiting for at least a link. Just because you say so doesn't make it so.
 
I note that its funny watching those who aren't high net taxpayers constantly presuming to know more about economics and gaining wealth than those who are. Like many class warfare advocates, you want to lump all of those targeted for the clinton-pelosi-obama tax hikes into the bill gates class when the top rates hit those making 200K a year not just those with say LeBron James level salaries

try to refute what I said and spare me the sanctimonious bs

Then spare me the opinons with nothing to back them up.
 
Have you yet to figure out that a tax on income is based on income not wealth and a tax on wealth would never pass muster

the richest 1% of tax payers make 22% of the income yet pay 40% of the INCOME tax which is clearly disproportionate

try to at least understand the terms before making assertions that have NO RELEVANCE to the issue

what exact benefits do us top taxpayers get

i think you are making that up


I'm still waiting for proof of some kind or for God's sake at least a link, and I see I'm not alone. If it's so true why can't you produce one? I suppose you could be an elightened economist but for all I know you're the local garbage man.
 
What he said is close to true if we are talking simply personal income tax but of course everybody pays sales tax, taxes on things like cell phone services, property taxes, etc., I don't know the exact percentages but it is true that the wealthy shoulder the majority of the tax burden and should. But the question is when does that burden become so high it affect others in free market society. Buy nice cars, boats, building home, etc,. and it employs a lot of people who don't have to live off the government. Why is it you cannot see the tremendous waste in government spending and realize that it too is keeping a lot of people in poverty. Are you not jealous of all those CEO's in Congress (Senators) that are getting wealthy spending our money?

Everbody pays sales tax, cell phone tax, and property tax? Are you kidding me? :shock:
What about those that operate their businesses under the table, or in cash only, those who don't have cell phones, (hell I don't have one), and those that don't own property?
 
I'm at a loss for how you think this is a response to anything that anyone has said.

Well he said that people don't start companies to create jobs. I was just wanting to make sure that he wasn't completely undervaluing the worker. It's hard not to sound Communist (and I'm not), but what I've seen in the past 10 - 20 years is the devaluation of the American worker.

Again, CEO salaries up 300% while employee wages up 4.3% during the same time frame.

And I know that the not-for-profit world has its issues, too. But in my not-for-profit, we've had to lose two staff members (thankfully to attrition as opposed to layoffs) of five. That means the three of us work a hell of lot harder, but until things turn around, no raises. Thankfully, we've devised some ideas that we think could raise enough money to bring back at least one staff position and give raises to the three full-time staffers. But we've done it through creativity.

Why do CEOs get to fail their workers AND shareholders and collect $24 million? How can we not recognize that something is incredibly wrong in that system?
 
Well he said that people don't start companies to create jobs. I was just wanting to make sure that he wasn't completely undervaluing the worker. It's hard not to sound Communist (and I'm not), but what I've seen in the past 10 - 20 years is the devaluation of the American worker.

Again, CEO salaries up 300% while employee wages up 4.3% during the same time frame.

As I noted above, these figures are useless in a vacuum.

Graphs like this are terrible because they always seem to lack information about how they calculate their numbers. How do they define CEOs? When they measure corporate profits, what corporations are they measuring? As it is, these numbers are useless.

...


And I know that the not-for-profit world has its issues, too. But in my not-for-profit, we've had to lose two staff members (thankfully to attrition as opposed to layoffs) of five. That means the three of us work a hell of lot harder, but until things turn around, no raises. Thankfully, we've devised some ideas that we think could raise enough money to bring back at least one staff position and give raises to the three full-time staffers. But we've done it through creativity.

And the exact same thing has happened at many for profit corps.

Why do CEOs get to fail their workers AND shareholders and collect $24 million?

Why was Carl Pavano able to collect $40 million from the Yankees despite being an absolute ****pile? That's the downside of a world where people are free to contract. You have to take the good with the bad.

If corporations want to include clauses in their CEO contracts that eliminate bonuses for poor management, that's fine. Similarly, if a baseball team wants to offer a player an incentive-laden contract, that's fine too. What is entirely ridiculous is the idea that society should be able to retroactively tell a CEO/player that because he did poorly, he will have his contract unilaterally modified.

How can we not recognize that something is incredibly wrong in that system?

Again, that's a matter that is between a CEO and his corporation's shareholders.
 
Last edited:
Wow! Just wow....Cyborg comes up with, and takes the time to post a wonderfully thoughtful, and realistic lay out of how a small business needs to have assets, and capital resource to stay afloat in economic down turns like the one liberals, and Obama are purposely causing today, while giving the masses phony numbers to placate them. And the best you can come up with is talking point garbage?

Weak dude, very weak.


j-mac


Speaking of weak, I'm still waiting for some kind of link from your last two posts. I guess i won't get one. At least cyborg posted something even though he cherry picked his link and actually contradicted it.
 
Workers are not the point of a business, so I don't get what the problem here is. You claim the CEO mismanaged the company, but the Board paid him. IF he failed they could have fired him. So...

What he did for the people who matter was enough to earn the cash. I don't see the problem.

Has it ever occurred to you the board rewards underacheivers and keeps them on because they want to be next in line for the gravy train? Otherwise i can't see any good motive for keeping on someone that tanks the company. I sure wouldn't in my two businesses.
 
Has it ever occurred to you the board rewards underacheivers and keeps them on because they want to be next in line for the gravy train?

What on earth are you basing this on? First, many (most?) CEOs are not selected from the board. Second, even when new CEO's are selected from the board, it's not like everyone on the board thinks it will be them - there are usually only one or two candidates. Third, board directors generally receive the bulk of their compensation in the form of stock in the company. Keeping an unqualified CEO in office is completely contrary to their interests.

This is just ridiculous.
 
As I noted above, these figures are useless in a vacuum.

And the exact same thing has happened at many for profit corps.

Why was Carl Pavano able to collect $40 million from the Yankees despite being an absolute ****pile? That's the downside of a world where people are free to contract. You have to take the good with the bad.

If corporations want to include clauses in their CEO contracts that eliminate bonuses for poor management, that's fine. Similarly, if a baseball team wants to offer a player an incentive-laden contract, that's fine too. What is entirely ridiculous is the idea that society should be able to retroactively tell a CEO/player that because he did poorly, he will have his contract unilaterally modified.

Again, that's a matter that is between a CEO and his corporation's shareholders.

Well, that's where you and I disagree. I think there's a cultural flaw involved, because most shareholders are only connected to the company very loosely through mutual funds or retirement accounts, so they have no direct tie to the company even if they're shareholders.

Thus, it's only the highest investors who can withstand the losses making the decision to pay off terrible performers with multi-million dollar bonuses.

My problem is that we've created a system in this nation that values wealth over work. How else do you explain the stagnation of wages for most workers while CEO pay has increased in massive amounts. I know you say you discredit such numbers "in a vacuum", but why did that happen? Why, in your opinion, did CEO pay increase in rapid amounts while most Americans saw their wages stagnate?
 
Well, that's where you and I disagree. I think there's a cultural flaw involved, because most shareholders are only connected to the company very loosely through mutual funds or retirement accounts, so they have no direct tie to the company even if they're shareholders.

Thus, it's only the highest investors who can withstand the losses making the decision to pay off terrible performers with multi-million dollar bonuses.

I don't see how this really rebuts my point. It's entirely normal and appropriate to enter into contracts that provide guaranteed amounts. If companies didn't do that, they would have to pay more up front.

My problem is that we've created a system in this nation that values wealth over work. How else do you explain the stagnation of wages for most workers while CEO pay has increased in massive amounts. I know you say you discredit such numbers "in a vacuum", but why did that happen? Why, in your opinion, did CEO pay increase in rapid amounts while most Americans saw their wages stagnate?

I explain that by saying that I don't think it's anywhere near as significant as you're saying. Again, where are those numbers coming from? They're useless without more - if you actually adjust for company size, I bet it's much less noteworthy.
 
Still waiting for at least a link. Just because you say so doesn't make it so.

do you demand a link proving that the sun rises from the east as well? DO you play such evasive games because you don't like the facts? FOR YEARS the fans of the death tax justify it saying only 1% of estates pay that tax and there have been dozens of links to the income tax burdens. GIYLF
 
Then spare me the opinons with nothing to back them up.

Yawn-you ignore the fact that dozens of links have been put on this board-as well as people who think like you constantly claiming that the death tax only hits 1% of the estates.

the tax figures have been posted so many times that only one who is being dishonest would deny it
 
Since folks are arguing that business exist to make money, I went back and looked at the primary entity mentioned in the OP, Hewlett Packard (HPQ), and reviewed their stock over the last year. The company's stock has a 1-year change of -9.25% since Aug 2008. They reached a high in late-March of nearly 55 points (54.75) for the 52-week period, but since then have dropped to just over 40 points (40.34) when the markets closed on Friday (9/03/10).

A quote from the article in the OP reads:

The report, from the Institute of Policy Studies, found that the 50 layoff leaders received $12 million on average in 2009, compared with an average compensation of $8.5 million for chief executives of companies in Standard & Poor's 500. Each of the 50 companies examined in the report laid off at least 3,000 workers between November 2008 and April 2010.

“Our findings illustrate the great unfairness of the Great Recession,” said Sarah Anderson, lead author of the study, “CEO Pay and the Great Recession,” the latest in a series of annual “Executive Excess” reports published by the institute, a progressive think tank. “CEOs are squeezing workers to boost short-term profits and fatten their own paychecks.”

Those CEOs include HP’s Hurd, who slashed 6,400 jobs in 2009 — a year when his compensation amounted to $24.2 million.

Atleast where HP is concerned, the arguments for their CEO walking away with millions for underperforming does not hold water. He didn't make money for his company's shareholders. He lost them money, yet still managed to walk away with $24.2 million dollars!

Another company, Johnson & Johnson (JNJ):

William Weldon, who took home $25.6 million — more than three times the average CEO compensation for big U.S. companies — even as the health care giant was slashing 9,000 jobs and facing a massive drug recall scandal.

Their 52-week high was 66.20 points; 1-year ago their stock was at 61 points. They closed 9/03/10 at 58.93. One-year change, -1.27. Not nearly as bad as HP, but still they company lost money for their shareholders.

How does underperforming and mismanaging their companies justify their multi-million dollar payouts?

And the argument someone made that the employees don't matter...!?! Of course they matter! These are the exact same people who Republicans are claiming the Bush tax-cuts will benefit the most because they will create jobs. So, I'll come right back to my same question:

"If tax cuts were so beneficial to job growth, why the hell are these companies losing jobs?"

Why is it that between these two well known American companies, they've posted a combined loss of
-10.52 points on the NASDAQ, cut 9,400 jobs yet their CEOs walked away with just under $50M in severage pay?
 
Last edited:
Since folks are arguing that business exist to make money, I went back and looked at the primary entity mentioned in the OP, Hewlett Packard (HPQ), and reviewed their stock over the last year. The company's stock has a 1-year change of -9.25% since Aug 2008. They reached a high in late-March of nearly 55 points (54.75) for the 52-week period, but since then have dropped to just over 40 points (40.34) when the markets closed on Friday (9/03/10).

A quote from the article in the OP reads:

The report, from the Institute of Policy Studies, found that the 50 layoff leaders received $12 million on average in 2009, compared with an average compensation of $8.5 million for chief executives of companies in Standard & Poor's 500. Each of the 50 companies examined in the report laid off at least 3,000 workers between November 2008 and April 2010.

“Our findings illustrate the great unfairness of the Great Recession,” said Sarah Anderson, lead author of the study, “CEO Pay and the Great Recession,” the latest in a series of annual “Executive Excess” reports published by the institute, a progressive think tank. “CEOs are squeezing workers to boost short-term profits and fatten their own paychecks.”

Those CEOs include HP’s Hurd, who slashed 6,400 jobs in 2009 — a year when his compensation amounted to $24.2 million.

Atleast where HP is concerned, the arguments for their CEO walking away with millions for underperforming does not hold water. He didn't make money for his company's shareholders. He lost them money, yet still managed to walk away with $24.2 million dollars!

Another company, Johnson & Johnson (JNJ):

William Weldon, who took home $25.6 million — more than three times the average CEO compensation for big U.S. companies — even as the health care giant was slashing 9,000 jobs and facing a massive drug recall scandal.

Their 52-week high was 66.20 points; 1-year ago their stock was at 61 points. They closed 9/03/10 at 58.93. One-year change, -1.27. Not nearly as bad as HP, but still they company lost money for their shareholders.

How does underperforming and mismanaging their companies justify their multi-million dollar payouts?


Because you lack wisdom and facts. There is more going on behind the scenes then the simple numbers you keep tossing out. The board could have stopped those payouts, however they did not. This means the job done by the CEO was worth the $$ paid. I don't see why people think it matters what a CEO get's paid or not paid, and what that matters to the people hired or fired.

BUSINESSES DO NOT EXIST FOR THE WORKERS.
 
Last edited:
First, many (most?) CEOs are not selected from the board.


Second, even when new CEO's are selected from the board...


.

Other than you apparent contradiction, the fact that you're telling me the board has little if any bearing on the selection of CEO's is, shall I say -- in your own words -- ridiculous?
 
Last edited:
Yawn-you ignore the fact that dozens of links have been put on this board-as well as people who think like you constantly claiming that the death tax only hits 1% of the estates.

the tax figures have been posted so many times that only one who is being dishonest would deny it

Like I said as far as I know you're just the local garbage man. Why should I take your word for everything?
 
Because you lack wisdom and facts.
No. What I lack are the details - the what, when, why, how and where these company decision-makers wanted to take their company. You don't know this information either. All we see are the end results of what has been laid before us. Towit: Company A lost money, laid off X number of employees, and their CEOs walked away with millions.

There is more going on behind the scenes then the simple numbers you keep tossing out.
Granted, hence my statement above concerning not knowing the details. But not knowing still DOES NOT justify the end results - laying off thousands of employees as a result of company CEO's mismanagement but being rewarded for same. You cannot argue that is exactly what has happened here.

The board could have stopped those payouts, however they did not.

This could be part of the details we don't know. Were large severage packages part of these CEO's contracts? I'd imagine there were but therein lay the problem. Would you reward an average worker-bee if he screwed up on the assembly line? I would say not, but in a sense that's exactly what has happened with this CEOs, and their 1-year stock performances bore that out. Their "assembly line" IS the stock market. That is how their BoD and shareholders "evaluate" their CEOs overall performance - how good or bad their stock performed over a given period. Still, I would add that until we know how their contracts were structured, we'll never know the truth of the matter as to why these CEOs still made money even if the company their managed did not.

This means the job done by the CEO was worth the $$ paid.

Really? So, you're 100% okay with a CEO mismanaging their company and still walking away with that kind of money? Money that could have gone back into the company to possibly keep the people employeed? To help the very stagnent job market you're complaining about? Does that make any sense to you? CEO's making all that money, walking away from their company while also pushing employees out the door with nothing except their savings, if any, and the prospect of going to the very unemployment line you're arguing they shouldn't be in in the first place? Again, does that make sense to you?

I don't see why people think it matters what a CEO get's paid or not paid, and what that matters to the people hired or fired.

Thank you! You've tapped into the very reason for my argument. It should matter, not what CEOs make, but whether or not they should be paid anything for mismanaging their company while also forcing employing onto unemployment...atleast not along the amounts they are being paid under such circumstances.

BUSINESSES DO NOT EXIST FOR THE WORKERS.

No, but without the workers, the business would not exist!

WE make the products.

WE promote the product.

WE provide the service.

WE ensure the service is viable.

WE get the product to the market-place.

WE execute the business model.

That isn't to say that where 1,000 employees walk off the job or are laid off for one reason or another that another 1,000 employees won't eventually take their place. For this same argument can be made concerning CEOs. However, after that CEO walks away with his multi-million dollar severage package, many of those same employees who were fortunate enough not to be laid off will still be there doing the same jobs as they did before...

Making the products.

Promoting the product.

Providing the service.

Ensuring the service is viable.

Getting the product to the market-place.

And executing the business model.

Your argument concerning the value of the employee is greatly INVALID!
 
Last edited:
if that makes the shareholders money what's the problem?

The problem is you're not listening. If the company's not making money due to the CEO's incompetence, how can that be making the shareholders money?
 
Your argument concerning the value of the employee is greatly INVALID!

No, the Employees, in the end, don't matter. They are a means to and end. They are the means by which the people whom invested THEIR MONEY into the company, create wealth for themselves. That's the point of business. To enrich those whom have risked personal monies.

My argument about employees value isn't invalid, your emotionalism about their value is meaningless.
 
The problem is you're not listening. If the company's not making money due to the CEO's incompetence, how can that be making the shareholders money?

What if the CEO hired turned a 60 billion dollar loss into a 20 billion dollar loss. That's 40 billion in savings. I'd say that's an achievement for which compensation is due.
 
Back
Top Bottom