• 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!

Paychecks as Big as Tajikistan

P

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
38,975
Reaction score
14,318
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/business/19gret.html?_r=2&smid=tw-nytimesbusiness&seid=auto

This is why the US is in trouble...

Top pay rose 13.9% in 2010... in a recession.. for the top executives. While they are laying off people left and right and refusing to hire people, and workers are forced to go down in wages.... the top brass gets a much much much much higher than inflation pay rise... :doh

The amount paid, was the same as the GDP of Tajikistan...

But the kicker is this one..

Thirty-two companies paid their top executives more in 2010 than they paid in cash income taxes.
Click to expand...

Talk about a wacked out priorities ....
 
Nancy Pelosi's wealth increased by 62% last year. I guess she's part of the greed problem.
 
Income disparity is something new in the US, that's why they're 'in trouble'?
 
American said:
Nancy Pelosi's wealth increased by 62% last year. I guess she's part of the greed problem.
Click to expand...

I don't understand this form of argument, instead of denying that there isn't a problem you deny that someone has no right to point it out because of some generalization and guilt by association, regardless of how small that association is.

So what point are you trying to make? That while you admit there's a "greed problem" I mean you say it right there and claim someone is part of it, so it must exist in your mind, Nancy Pelosi is part of it therefore he has no right to point it out, thus you win the argument? That doesn't address the issue at all, in fact I think it makes it worse because you seem to not deny there is a problem but think we have to ignore it because someone is a hypocrite via guilt by association.

You can still be a hypocrite and be right. If you're a liar, and say someone else is lying when they are in fact lying, they are still a damn liar regardless if the person calling them out is a hypocrite. And suggesting that no that person is in fact not a liar is a dangerous denial of reality just for the sake of attempting to take a smug moral superiority by attacking someone with a weak guilt by association argument.
 
Wiseone said:
I don't understand this form of argument, instead of denying that there isn't a problem you deny that someone has no right to point it out because of some generalization and guilt by association, regardless of how small that association is.

So what point are you trying to make? That while you admit there's a "greed problem" I mean you say it right there and claim someone is part of it, so it must exist in your mind, Nancy Pelosi is part of it therefore he has no right to point it out, thus you win the argument? That doesn't address the issue at all, in fact I think it makes it worse because you seem to not deny there is a problem but think we have to ignore it because someone is a hypocrite via guilt by association.

You can still be a hypocrite and be right. If you're a liar, and say someone else is lying when they are in fact lying, they are still a damn liar regardless if the person calling them out is a hypocrite. And suggesting that no that person is in fact not a liar is a dangerous denial of reality just for the sake of attempting to take a smug moral superiority by attacking someone with a weak guilt by association argument.
Click to expand...

Because I know Pete.
 
American said:
Because I know Pete.
Click to expand...

That really wasn't better than your first argument for the same reason. Im really not even sure what point you are trying to make now, do you think there's a problem, not think there is a problem? Whats your opinion on said problem, all these questions which should define your argument are all lacking. So since you can't or won't make a coherent arguement I can assume it must be for one of two reasons, either you're stupid and think you are cleverer than you actually are, OR you're just trying to bait people with these kind of short smug responses, which I guess is actually just another form of stupid so really I can only assume its one of one reason, stupidity.
 
So how much is it worth to:

1. Run a company worth billions of dollars.
2. Run a company that hires thousands of employees.
3. Run a company with hundreds of locations.
4. Be the fall guy any time something negative happens with the company.
5. Be the fall guy when the board of directors wants answers on a poor quarter.
6. Be the figured head of a mutli-national corporation.
7. Be the guy begging Congress to provide a bail out, increase/decrease regulations, or approve a merger.
8. Be the guy responsible for every decision made, even if you don't get to make them yourself.
9. Be the guy who might not see his family for most of the year.
10. Be the guy held responsible when one asshole in accounting (out of thousands of assholes in accounting) manipulates the system and loses millions of the company's profits.

How much is it worth to be a top executive? Do you think we would find honest, capable, willing executives if we took them down to a rate of people equal to your justifiable level? Do you think cutting salaries to your justifiable level would ensure that executives put in time and effort to run companies properly? Do you think we would be able to fill empty executive positions at the rate of pay you'd like to see them earning? Do you think companies would be more successful?
 
tessaesque said:
So how much is it worth to:

1. Run a company worth billions of dollars.
2. Run a company that hires thousands of employees.
3. Run a company with hundreds of locations.
4. Be the fall guy any time something negative happens with the company.
5. Be the fall guy when the board of directors wants answers on a poor quarter.
6. Be the figured head of a mutli-national corporation.
7. Be the guy begging Congress to provide a bail out, increase/decrease regulations, or approve a merger.
8. Be the guy responsible for every decision made, even if you don't get to make them yourself.
9. Be the guy who might not see his family for most of the year.
10. Be the guy held responsible when one asshole in accounting (out of thousands of assholes in accounting) manipulates the system and loses millions of the company's profits.

How much is it worth to be a top executive? Do you think we would find honest, capable, willing executives if we took them down to a rate of people equal to your justifiable level? Do you think cutting salaries to your justifiable level would ensure that executives put in time and effort to run companies properly? Do you think we would be able to fill empty executive positions at the rate of pay you'd like to see them earning? Do you think companies would be more successful?
Click to expand...

I think looking at how much CEO salaries have increased in the last decade, and how much better off economically in the last decade, that it's not going to hurt anything to reduce their salary. Companies should cut back on these ridiculous pay increases, now I'm not saying they don't have a right to do whatever they want in their company so long as its legal, nor I'm I suggesting it'll solve our problems, but frankly legal or not its disgusting to see these people who's company's are often driven into the ground and workers suffering, reap in huge amounts of money.

You talk about capable, yes they should be capable, problem is many times they aren't, so by your own definition they shouldn't be paid that much.

Executive PayWatch: Trends in CEO Pay

http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2008-04-09-ceo-pay_N.htm
 
Last edited:
Wiseone said:
I think looking at how much CEO salaries have increased in the last decade, and how much better off economically in the last decade, that it's not going to hurt anything to reduce their salary. Companies should cut back on these ridiculous pay increases, now I'm not saying they don't have a right to do whatever they want in their company so long as its legal, nor I'm I suggesting it'll solve our problems, but frankly legal or not its disgusting to see these people who's company's are often driven into the ground and workers suffering, reap in huge amounts of money.

You talk about capable, yes they should be capable, problem is many times they aren't, so by your own definition they shouldn't be paid that much.

Executive PayWatch: Trends in CEO Pay
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing whether or not they make a lot of money. I'm asking somebody to provide answers the questions posted in my original post. What is a top-level executive worth, and how to we plan to bring in talent at that rate?

And to be completely fair, the number of businesses that fail due to corruption or poorly-performing executives is a pretty small percentage of the total business make-up of our country.
 
tessaesque said:
I'm not arguing whether or not they make a lot of money. I'm asking somebody to provide answers the questions posted in my original post. What is a top-level executive worth, and how to we plan to bring in talent at that rate?

And to be completely fair, the number of businesses that fail due to corruption or poorly-performing executives is a pretty small percentage of the total business make-up of our country.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen any numbers on percentages but I wouldn't disagree. Really my argument focuses more on simple morals, which tell me that those in that kind of position shouldn't reap in huge rewards, regardless if their "talents" demand that kind of wage when the company and its employees are suffering. I just don't think its right to take that kind of money and stick it in your pocket when it could be used to help the damn company you run and/or own, not to mention the people. I'm not saying what they do is or should be illegal, its just my opinion its morally disgusting.
 
Wiseone said:
I haven't seen any numbers on percentages but I wouldn't disagree. Really my argument focuses more on simple morals, which tell me that those in that kind of position shouldn't reap in huge rewards, regardless if their "talents" demand that kind of wage when the company and its employees are suffering. I just don't think its right to take that kind of money and stick it in your pocket when it could be used to help the damn company you run and/or own, not to mention the people. I'm not saying what they do is or should be illegal, its just my opinion its morally disgusting.
Click to expand...

The last company I worked for was owned by three men. The company pulled in approximately $13 million in net income each year. We had 40 employees, three locations, and usually about $2 million worth of inventory on-hand. I was mid-range in terms of salary, making 35k a year (started at $10 an hour three years ago). There were weeks that I wondered whether I could afford the gas to get to work during that three-year run, but I never felt as though the owners should give up some of their millions because I was struggling. They're the ones taking the risk with the company, especially in a trick economy. Why should they not be the ones reaping the majority of the reward?
 
tessaesque said:
The last company I worked for was owned by three men. The company pulled in approximately $13 million in net income each year. We had 40 employees, three locations, and usually about $2 million worth of inventory on-hand. I was mid-range in terms of salary, making 35k a year (started at $10 an hour three years ago). There were weeks that I wondered whether I could afford the gas to get to work during that three-year run, but I never felt as though the owners should give up some of their millions because I was struggling. They're the ones taking the risk with the company, especially in a trick economy. Why should they not be the ones reaping the majority of the reward?
Click to expand...

Like I said its really just personal opinion, and I think it comes from my experience in the Army. Like these business owners I have a lot of responsibility and control over people's lives, however I don't do it for monetary gain. When I think of being the "boss" or "leader" I think of someone who's there to help his people, someone who'll make sacrifices for his people, it doesn't occur to me that its only for personal economic gain and that the only reason you, the employee, are there is simply because there's too much labor for the owner to do.

Beyond that I can't really justify it because again its personal opinion, its just how I feel, I'm not claiming a rock-solid argument its just how I feel.
 
Class warfare is not going to solve this nations problems, no matter how jealous of the boss's income one is.

j-mac
 
Wiseone said:
I think looking at how much CEO salaries have increased in the last decade, and how much better off economically in the last decade, that it's not going to hurt anything to reduce their salary. Companies should cut back on these ridiculous pay increases, now I'm not saying they don't have a right to do whatever they want in their company so long as its legal, nor I'm I suggesting it'll solve our problems, but frankly legal or not its disgusting to see these people who's company's are often driven into the ground and workers suffering, reap in huge amounts of money.

You talk about capable, yes they should be capable, problem is many times they aren't, so by your own definition they shouldn't be paid that much.

Executive PayWatch: Trends in CEO Pay

Stocks may fall, but execs' pay doesn't - USATODAY.com
Click to expand...

Many times? How many? Who in particular do you mean?
 
tessaesque said:
So how much is it worth to:

1. Run a company worth billions of dollars.
2. Run a company that hires thousands of employees.
3. Run a company with hundreds of locations.
4. Be the fall guy any time something negative happens with the company.
5. Be the fall guy when the board of directors wants answers on a poor quarter.
6. Be the figured head of a mutli-national corporation.
7. Be the guy begging Congress to provide a bail out, increase/decrease regulations, or approve a merger.
8. Be the guy responsible for every decision made, even if you don't get to make them yourself.
9. Be the guy who might not see his family for most of the year.
10. Be the guy held responsible when one asshole in accounting (out of thousands of assholes in accounting) manipulates the system and loses millions of the company's profits.

How much is it worth to be a top executive? Do you think we would find honest, capable, willing executives if we took them down to a rate of people equal to your justifiable level? Do you think cutting salaries to your justifiable level would ensure that executives put in time and effort to run companies properly? Do you think we would be able to fill empty executive positions at the rate of pay you'd like to see them earning? Do you think companies would be more successful?
Click to expand...

Being the top dog and working to become the top dog are two different things. It's much easier being the top dog. It would seem that you assume corporate heads are indispensable. They aren't. Often these days there is much too much compensation difference between corporate level directors and the rank and file staff and line workers.

It's all a rather moot point anyway. Corporate boards and share holders aren't going to roll back compensation, the government damned sure isn't going to do anything and perhaps only a few CEOs, CFOs and COOs are going to be magnanimous and return excessive compensation to the employees.

I will all be whiskey under the bridge by this winter when the country finally tanks.
 
Last edited:
Wiseone said:
I'm talking about individuals such as Bernie Madoff who basically ran a ponzi scheme with investors money. Or Richard Fuld who, while Lehman Brothers was collasping, managed to be paid at least 300 million by his own admission.

Richard Fuld punched in face in Lehman Brothers gym - Telegraph
Click to expand...


Equating today's CEO's with Bernie Madoff is not only wrong on so many levels, but inflammatory too boot.

Richard Fuld is another story, however, compensation like that wouldn't shouldn't be a question because it is the shareholders that determine the contracts right?

j-mac
 
PeteEU said:
But the kicker is this one..

Thirty-two companies paid their top executives more in 2010 than they paid in cash income taxes.

Talk about a wacked out priorities ....
Click to expand...

...except most corporations nowadays will take as much excess profit as they can, put it down as executive payroll, and pay a different tax on it. Doesn't mean the money goes untaxed, or that they're using it for take-home pay.

Accounting 101.

HEY-O!
 
Last edited:
PeteEU said:
So she got 62% pay rise in Congress... ?
Click to expand...

In terms of her wealth, not Congressional pay. Unless you really think that is her only income? But I suspect you are just being disingenuous here....

Look, you are promoting class warfare, with this bitching about CEO pay, when you are smart enough to know how that is arrived at.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
In terms of her wealth, not Congressional pay. Unless you really think that is her only income? But I suspect you are just being disingenuous here....

Look, you are promoting class warfare, with this bitching about CEO pay, when you are smart enough to know how that is arrived at.

j-mac
Click to expand...

No... American is trying to change the subject by bringing irrelevant bs into the topic, and you are helping him. So stick to the topic.

Do you find that the top CEOs are being paid too much or not? Do you find that the fact that 32 companies paid more in CEO compensation than they paid in taxes a problem?
 
j-mac said:
In terms of her wealth, not Congressional pay. Unless you really think that is her only income? But I suspect you are just being disingenuous here....

Look, you are promoting class warfare, with this bitching about CEO pay, when you are smart enough to know how that is arrived at.

j-mac
Click to expand...


Was it class warfare when Marie Antoinette was executed?

If so so be it . I don't like cake nor can I live off it.
 
PeteEU said:
No... American is trying to change the subject by bringing irrelevant bs into the topic, and you are helping him. So stick to the topic.
Click to expand...

No, you are just frustrated when challenged on your absurd assertions...Like most libs I know.

Do you find that the top CEOs are being paid too much or not?
Click to expand...

Why should I care? Did they or did they not negotiate their own contracts? What makes you think that you are entitled to decide what the head of some company you don't even work for should make other than petty jealousy, and a misguided sense of entitlement?

Do you find that the fact that 32 companies paid more in CEO compensation than they paid in taxes a problem?
Click to expand...

If they were legal in their tax payments, then they are just fine. I am more worried how demo's like Rangel, who sits on the committee writing the code, chooses to skirt the system and not pay his fair share.

j-mac
 
winston53660 said:
Was it class warfare when Marie Antoinette was executed?
Click to expand...

In a way, yes. but you have the context distorted I suspect.

If so so be it . I don't like cake nor can I live off it.
Click to expand...

Just got back from the brand new Wal Mart by my house...They had plenty of food for sale, including the juicy steaks I am slapping on the grill in about 30 min...Along with my ice cold brew.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Equating today's CEO's with Bernie Madoff is not only wrong on so many levels, but inflammatory too boot.

Richard Fuld is another story, however, compensation like that wouldn't shouldn't be a question because it is the shareholders that determine the contracts right?

j-mac
Click to expand...

I did not equate every CEO with Bernie Madoff, American asked me to which CEOs and Execs was I was referring to when I said many of them are not capable. These are the individuals who I'm personally disgusted with, and individuals like them who when their company is on the ropes still receive massive salaries and sometimes pay increases. Now some are in fact extremely capable, there's no denying that either, I don't have a problem with them since their company can easier cover their salaries because the company is actually profitable.

Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "many" originally and instead have used "some" but I think I've clarified the point I was trying to reach.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom