• 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!

With workers cutting back, wealthy CEOs should cut back too. Agree/disagree

With workers cutting back, wealthy CEOs should cut back too. Agree/disagree

  • Disagree. Quality CEOs are in short supply. They must be paid more or companies can't survive.

    Votes: 2 4.8%

  • Agree. Times are tough. CEOs should take pay cuts to help their companies be more profitable.

    Votes: 40 95.2%
  • Total voters
    42
evanescence said:
Of course the CEOs are getting pay raises. Unemployment is up and wages are down.
Click to expand...

When all else fails, toss in Blizzard's famed quote. "Working as intended."
 
LuckyDan said:
I'll go with the guy who knows how to make us profitable. It means not only job security, but regular raises and opportunities for promotion.
Click to expand...

If we're having hard times, and he's not willing to burden some of the load, he isn't that guy who'll make anyone more profitable. The auto industry for example has paid highly for CEO's who have not been profitable.
 
evanescence said:
And interestingly, CEOs still get big fat bonuses regardless of poor performance. If profits decline, lay off the laborers. It's age old greed.
Click to expand...

That is despicable no doubt. But, these CEO's negotiate contracts that the board approves, and the stock holders approve the board. The greed you identify is age old and very real... what CEO's should be doing is bypass their contract and take the lumps of their company like everyone else does. That a majority do not, is opportunistic as well as despicable.
 
Ockham said:
That is despicable no doubt. But, these CEO's negotiate contracts that the board approves, and the stock holders approve the board. The greed you identify is age old and very real... what CEO's should be doing is bypass their contract and take the lumps of their company like everyone else does. That a majority do not, is opportunistic as well as despicable.
Click to expand...
Board of directors elected, no not really. Have you ever voted for a board of directors? What real options did you have? Most members of a board sit on several other boards, I heard once that the number was 5. And, if you have a 401k or a mutual fund did you ever get to vote? The feds have tried to make the board’s power more real with new regulations, but corporate lobbying has prevented this from being effective. The board is a rubber stamp.
 
I'm less angry about CEO salaries and more angry about their stock options.

Personally, I think unions and minimum wage should be abolished -- instead, a universal standard should be established (through law, if necessary) where all worker's salary and/or stock options get a mandatory increase or decrease according to a company's profit margins.
 
Last edited:
This article is referring to only a very small group: 200 individuals.

I'm not about to crap my pants over the income of 200 people based on what someone else deems as 'fair'
 
Aunt Spiker said:
This article is referring to only a very small group: 200 individuals.

I'm not about to crap my pants over the income of 200 people based on what someone else deems as 'fair'
Click to expand...

At some point fairness has to be a factor.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
Board of directors elected, no not really. Have you ever voted for a board of directors? What real options did you have? Most members of a board sit on several other boards, I heard once that the number was 5. And, if you have a 401k or a mutual fund did you ever get to vote? The feds have tried to make the board’s power more real with new regulations, but corporate lobbying has prevented this from being effective. The board is a rubber stamp.
Click to expand...
I've voted for the board of directors a few times with the holdings I have. The options you have are usually set, and to your point there's not much of a choice, but that's just how things are.
 
Ockham said:
I've voted for the board of directors a few times with the holdings I have. The options you have are usually set, and to your point there's not much of a choice, but that's just how things are.
Click to expand...

You're experience and research is effectively the same as mine. Then I don't understand your earlier post. Please clarify. thx
 
OhIsee.Then said:
You're experience and research is effectively the same as mine. Then I don't understand your earlier post. Please clarify. thx
Click to expand...

I was just explaining the process. Nothing more.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
You seemed to be disagreeing with the study and questioning it.



The study looks at the 200 highest paid CEO's and their salaries seem to be raised by 23% by 2009! That is ridiculous. Sure some CEO's pay have not been increasing but im still they are doing just dandy.


How are CEO's not greedy?Really does not go that direction, its just saying these guys are making a whopping while we give them a tax cut, and say hey not enough jobs here, were gonna cut back on these workers why we give ourselves a nice little increase in wages but we still cant hire you workers.


Im sure i didnt cuz it never said that.


Really not what it said.
Here is the whole "idea" of the article from the article itself:

"These numerical indices of unrestrained self-enrichment by the corporate-financial elite provide the appropriate context for considering the unprecedented wave of budget-cutting taking place across the country. Record budget deficits—the result of depleted tax revenues stemming from the economic crash precipitated by corporate fraud, plus the multi-trillion-dollar bailout of the banks—are being used to justify the gutting of health care, pensions and education as well as pay cuts and attacks on workers’ bargaining rights and the right to strike.
The universal claim is that “there is no money” to meet the basic needs of the broad masses of the people. As the CEO pay figures show, however, this is a modern-day example of the Big Lie."



So as a worker under a socialist economy you believe you will be "heavily taxed"?
Click to expand...

So they made on average 23% more by 2009. Why does that bother you? If it's greed, then are workers also greedy for wanting raises?

Are you suggesting a socialist economy would not tax me? Or my employer?
 
Boo Radley said:
If we're having hard times, and he's not willing to burden some of the load, he isn't that guy who'll make anyone more profitable. The auto industry for example has paid highly for CEO's who have not been profitable.
Click to expand...

It appears none of the companies studied in this article (remember the companies studied reported over 10 billion in revenue) were having hard times.

If a CEO is heading a company that is having hard times, he's probably going to be packing up his stuff and getting out before long. A symbolic salary decrease on his part probably won't change that.
 
Everyone on Government payroll from Obama to the janitor in every State and Federal office need a pay cut and wage freezes, and a 75% reduction in perks from the White House to parking and postage of both Houses of Congress.

They are ignoring the cost of living for us retired folks they need to see what it's like.
 
Councilman said:
Everyone on Government payroll from Obama to the janitor in every State and Federal office need a pay cut and wage freezes, and a 75% reduction in perks from the White House to parking and postage of both Houses of Congress.

They are ignoring the cost of living for us retired folks they need to see what it's like.
Click to expand...

So your issue is inflation, but inflation has been very low. The cost of some commodities has risen a lot, e.g. gas, but that is not inflation. So some states haven’t been able to cut pay but have been able to cut jobs. Is that as good as cutting pay? BTY, I’m retired too, but having no trouble with inflation since our investments are doing very well. You’re not just living on SS only are you?
 
LuckyDan said:
It appears none of the companies studied in this article (remember the companies studied reported over 10 billion in revenue) were having hard times.

If a CEO is heading a company that is having hard times, he's probably going to be packing up his stuff and getting out before long. A symbolic salary decrease on his part probably won't change that.
Click to expand...

Well they did freeze cost of living increases for those getting social security checks. But then again, cutting costs on the poor is how they usually begin the process.
 
evanescence said:
Well they did freeze cost of living increases for those getting social security checks. But then again, cutting costs on the poor is how they usually begin the process.
Click to expand...

"They" are not CEOs.
 
BDBoop said:
Personally, I don't feel it's fair to include Ralph Lauren, who owns Ralph Lauren. That first one made me see red. Gee, health care costs. I get it now.
Click to expand...

granted, it does take a billion dollars to get a drug to market. personally, i don't see how that can continue, as health care is unaffordable for so many. it may mean that riskier drugs make it to market, but honestly, i have my doubts if aspirin would make it to market if it were discovered today.

however, i think a lot of executives forget their impact on public relations. compensation policies like that in a job / health care climate like the one we have now makes it easy for the average person to hate a company, even if the CEO salary actually has little impact on the price of the product. in this case, taking that salary at this particular moment invites a lot of scrutiny.
 
LuckyDan said:
So they made on average 23% more by 2009. Why does that bother you? If it's greed, then are workers also greedy for wanting raises?
Click to expand...
With a time of "economic despair" and the middle class eradicating, and all the jobs being ship over seas and the CEO's think its a good time to give themselves raises and not help out and maybe try to bring some of those jobs back here but instead they give themselves raises i would call that greed a huge act of injustice.

Are you suggesting a socialist economy would not tax me? Or my employer?
Click to expand...
No i never said that.
Extreme system of Progressive Taxation.
 
The poll is lopsided, it's assuming that CEOs are more important than the workers. Should workers take a pay cut if they are quality workers? Isn't the survival of the company also dependent on them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom