• 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

Hey genus, from your own link, small business represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms. Employ half of all private sector employees, Pay 44 percent of total private payroll, generated 64 percent of new jobs over the past 15 years, create more than half of the no farm gdp, plus they produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms.

My question to you is,why did the Republicans in the Senate block a bill to increase small business lending? Now do you want to debate this subject or are you here just to post s***while doing a drive by?


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
 
Your a real hoot prof...it took you two minutes to edit this post so that even you could understand what you posted.

spoken like a true personality whore

meanwhile robert reich, secty of labor, key contributor to the clinton economic team:

"67,000 in August may be better than expected, but it’s still awful. 125,000 are needed just for the growth in potential workforce. And the trend is moving in the wrong direction. Revised figure shows private sector created 107,000 jobs in July. In other words, things are getting worse, not better."

Obama's optimism on the economy justified? - The Arena | POLITICO.COM

ouch

these clintonistas, led by serpent headed cajun james carville, are NOT loyal

as for barry's small business bill, republicans will kill it until leadership allows amendments on the floor addressing this:

Health care law's hidden tax change to launch 1099 avalanche - May. 5, 2010

harry knows if he opens up debate he'll lose conrad, lieberman, nelson, bayh, dorgan, lincoln...

party on!
 
the socialists claim we gain so much more by being soaked by scumbag politicians such as Obama who appeal to the socialists,the parasites, the envious and the slothful to vote for Obama because he is going to soak the wealthy.

Obama, the Great,
The Great Divider that is.

I've never seen this country more divided, in so many different ways, than it is today.
 
exactly, socialists tend to think that getting a large salary is a benefit from the government which it is not. They seem to forget that those who earn a lot have usually done something economically valuable or useful. FOr example, if Jimmy Page, Robert Plant, JP Jones and Bonzo's son Jason announce a world tour tomorrow, they would sell 100 million in tickets within a day. Is the government giving them 100 million or is it that a million people believe hearing Led Zeppelin play live is worth-to each of them-100 dollars of entertainment?

Hoplite and those like him assume that those who earn alot are "Given something" when in reality they are trading value for value

I get the impression that they don't just think the rich are "given something" but they are somehow cheating people to get that money.
 
Watch CNBC or Fox Business and you will understand. Companies have no clue what's coming next from this administration. They won't invest their money in their businesses or expand their workforce when they have no clue how much money this administration is going to make them pay in taxes, via Cap & Trade and Obamacare. As long as this anti-business environment exists, companies are going to continue to sit on their money.
I'll agree with this point. It would make sense for any company - be it a Fortune 500 company or a small business - to sit down and try to figure out how his business will be affected in the near future by changes in such legistlation as healthcare reform, credit card reform and financial reform. But none of that justifies these same companies who have received government bailouts laying off thousands of employees while their CEOs who mismanaged these very same companies walk away with millions in severage pay and bonuses when they resign. Those who view this as an individual "earning more of what they keep" have definately drunk much too much of the corporate/GOP koolaid!

You don't earn money when your company's portfolio goes south.

You don't earn money when your company's stock declines in value.

You don't earn money when you quit on the company you mismanaged.

And you don't deserve to walk away with millions while your former employees are forced out the door with nothing but what little savings they may have or what unemployment benefits they may be entitled to. And before anyone from the GOP partly line says it, these people who were laided off because their former bosses (CEOs) mismanaged their companies didn't deserve to loss the money they rightly were earning. Would you claim these people among the lazy, no-good, do-for-nothings who just sit around collecting paychecks off the government? As Conservative is fond of saying, "Where's your outrage?"
 
Last edited:
20% of a person's income means a lot more when you're making $30,000 a year as opposed to $3,000,000 a year. I feel that if you have more to contribute, the benefits you gain by having that extra in our society means you should contribute more.
I'm not sure I agree so much. It depends on the life style of each. The person with 3,000,000 is contributing more by the way. He's probably wondering why you're contributing so little to the government.

Look at the upside. People would be encouraged to make as much as they could without worry of getting into a higher tax bracket.
Anything is preferable to the tax system we have. We could pretty much do away with the IRS.
Though actually I think I favor a consumption tax, where you aren't taxed until you spend. That way even drug dealers, etc. would be contributing.
 
Corporations are in business to make money and maximize profits. In fact, they are in violation of their charters if they do otherwise. If they are laying off people, that is their right. It doesn't necessarily make them evil people. After all, we don't want to force a company into bankruptcy by forcing bloat on them. If they go bankrupt, let it be because they themselves are responsible, not because the government forced it on them. Let me add, by the same token, if they go under, then don't bail them out. Let the market determine whether or not they stay in business. The government should act like a government, and not a charity for big business.

This is accurate, but Hewlitt-Packard (the example company) is the prime example of rewarding CEOs for terrible performance. Hell, Carly Fiorino is running saying she created jobs, when in actuality she just fired a bunch of people, lost shareholder value, got fired, and then waltzed off with a huge golden parachute payment. Now, this guy gets charged with sexual harassment, the company loses money again, they fire more people, and he gets $24 million to celebrate with.

What I'm sick of are people thinking that CEOs are somehow more glorious and wonderful, while government servers are self-serving - when in reality, they're all of the same ilk.

I don't trust them any more than I trust government.

And here's why:

changeinceopaygraph.jpg


CEO salaries up 300% since 1995. Have profits risen 300% during that time? No. They didn't.

CEOs are fat, bloated, and extremely overpaid.

If you fail to see that over the past couple of decades this nation has devalued work and over-valued wealth, then you're simply not paying attention.

And look here:

GLB_EXCMP0909.gif


This is entirely an American phenomenon. In most other nations, CEOs aren't paid 400 to 500 times their employees. They're well compensated ($200,000 to $1.7 million), but it's not quite so outrageous. And their companies are equally as successful. Why is that?

Maybe it's because they understand that the CEO isn't the ONLY reason for being profitable? Whereas in this country we seem to deem them to be all-knowing sages who apparently are the only ones deserving of reward - whether they succeed or not.
 
Hey genus, from your own link, small business represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms. Employ half of all private sector employees, Pay 44 percent of total private payroll, generated 64 percent of new jobs over the past 15 years, create more than half of the no farm gdp, plus they produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms.

My question to you is,why did the Republicans in the Senate block a bill to increase small business lending? Now do you want to debate this subject or are you here just to post s***while doing a drive by?

Being able to borrow isn't the biggest problem the small business has. They aren't going to borrow if they don't know if they can pay it back. This administration has caused so much uncertainty no one is going to start a new business or expand when they have no idea what's coming down the road. They need permanent tax cuts. They need to know what's in the HC bill. They need to know what new regulations are coming their way concerning any cap and trade or energy bill.
Borrowing money is probably the farthest thing from their minds.
I'm glad the Rep. are continuing to say no to more spending.
People will get off their money when they are comfortable about investing it.
 
Moreover, the fact that these companies have NOT been successful is the strongest evidence yet that tax-cuts have not worked as affectively as proclaimed. If they did, why the hell have these businessed failed? Why haven't the jobs continued to be there even in a down economy? The tax-cuts are still in place, right? So, why aren't they making the difference so many are claiming they make?
 
Corporations are in business to make money and maximize profits. In fact, they are in violation of their charters if they do otherwise. If they are laying off people, that is their right. It doesn't necessarily make them evil people. After all, we don't want to force a company into bankruptcy by forcing bloat on them. If they go bankrupt, let it be because they themselves are responsible, not because the government forced it on them. Let me add, by the same token, if they go under, then don't bail them out. Let the market determine whether or not they stay in business. The government should act like a government, and not a charity for big business.

This thread isn't about corporations making money, it's about greedy CEO's laying off workers and getting compenated for it.
 
This thread isn't about corporations making money, it's about greedy CEO's laying off workers and getting compenated for it.

What's wrong with CEO's being rewarded for increasing profits for those that matter?
 
What's wrong with CEO's being rewarded for increasing profits for those that matter?

Nothing's wrong with that if the company did, in fact, make a profit. Obviously, the companies mentioned in the OP didn't do that. So, why should the CEO's walk away like fat cats while their employees run to the very unemployment lines some of you perceived as a revolving door of government handouts? These hard working individuals didn't do anything except come to work on time, put in their 8+ hrs a day/40+ hrs a week helping to turn out the products and services their companies exist to provide. Yet, when these companies have been mismanaged it's not the CEO's who walk away with nothing, it is the employees. Where is their golden parachute for being hard working individuals? Why should they get the shaft while the CEOs who mismanaged the company walk away with millions?

As far as I'm concerned, if as a CEO your company's profit margin goes in the red to such a degree that you have to layoff employees, you haven't done your job very well and, therefore, you don't deserve severance pay in the millions when you walk away from that company or are fired by your former Board of Directors. You didn't earn that money; it was "given" to you. Shareholders, employees and even the public have a right to be pissed off under such circumstances.
 
Nothing's wrong with that if the company did, in fact, make a profit. Obviously, the companies mentioned in the OP didn't do that.

How is that "obvious"? The story in the OP didn't say anything about profits at all. True, liblady said something in the OP about "running the company into the ground," but that isn't borne out by the story.

In fact:

News Headlines

Johnson & Johnson Profit Up, Lowers Full-Year Forecast

Schering-Plough Hits Four-Month High, Profit Up 45% (Update3) - Bloomberg

So, I'm not sure what's "obvious" about it. These companies are not only NOT being run into the ground, they're quite profitable.
 
Nothing's wrong with that if the company did, in fact, make a profit. Obviously, the companies mentioned in the OP didn't do that. So, why should the CEO's walk away like fat cats while their employees run to the very unemployment lines some of you perceived as a revolving door of government handouts? These hard working individuals didn't do anything except come to work on time, put in their 8+ hrs a day/40+ hrs a week helping to turn out the products and services their companies exist to provide. Yet, when these companies have been mismanaged it's not the CEO's who walk away with nothing, it is the employees. Where is their golden parachute for being hard working individuals? Why should they get the shaft while the CEOs who mismanaged the company walk away with millions?

As far as I'm concerned, if as a CEO your company's profit margin goes in the red to such a degree that you have to layoff employees, you haven't done your job very well and, therefore, you don't deserve severance pay in the millions when you walk away from that company or are fired by your former Board of Directors. You didn't earn that money; it was "given" to you. Shareholders, employees and even the public have a right to be pissed off under such circumstances.

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.
 
This thread isn't about corporations making money, it's about greedy CEO's laying off workers and getting compenated for it.


such as United Health Groups ceo Stephen Hemsley, who pulled down an eye popping $101,959,866 last year. I believe that figures out at around $475K per hour for a forty-hour week. I believe I could get by on that and not be eaten neck bones and beans for a while.:2wave:

Minnesota's highest-paid executives
 
This is accurate, but Hewlitt-Packard (the example company) is the prime example of rewarding CEOs for terrible performance. Hell, Carly Fiorino is running saying she created jobs, when in actuality she just fired a bunch of people, lost shareholder value, got fired, and then waltzed off with a huge golden parachute payment. Now, this guy gets charged with sexual harassment, the company loses money again, they fire more people, and he gets $24 million to celebrate with.

What I'm sick of are people thinking that CEOs are somehow more glorious and wonderful, while government servers are self-serving - when in reality, they're all of the same ilk.

I don't trust them any more than I trust government.

And here's why:

changeinceopaygraph.jpg


CEO salaries up 300% since 1995. Have profits risen 300% during that time? No. They didn't.

CEOs are fat, bloated, and extremely overpaid.

If you fail to see that over the past couple of decades this nation has devalued work and over-valued wealth, then you're simply not paying attention.

And look here:

GLB_EXCMP0909.gif


This is entirely an American phenomenon. In most other nations, CEOs aren't paid 400 to 500 times their employees. They're well compensated ($200,000 to $1.7 million), but it's not quite so outrageous. And their companies are equally as successful. Why is that?

Maybe it's because they understand that the CEO isn't the ONLY reason for being profitable? Whereas in this country we seem to deem them to be all-knowing sages who apparently are the only ones deserving of reward - whether they succeed or not.

good data. but it does not confirm your presentation that American (banking) CEOs are over compensated compared to their foreign counterparts. look at the aussie and spanish CEOs as two examples

but at those banks as with H-P, those CEOs receive what the shareholders agree to pay. if the stock owner is dissatisfied with the CEOs performance, then they only have to divest themselves of that stock and buy the stock of another whose CEO performance they are satisfied

in my opinion, a better way to compensate these executives would be to link the long term performance of the company to their compensation package. where incentives are focused only on short term results, the executive will very possibly (and not unreasonably) sacrifice long term gains in favor of short term gains. even if the long term gains would be substantially better
in professional sports, it makes sense to compensate short-term, for the year's performance, because the player's impact this year is going to have no impact on next year's record. (curiously, pro sports compensation is structured backwards, where long term contracts are awarded - often without long term justification ... but i digress)
if compensation were to compensate today's executive tomorrow (say three to five years out), where a portion of the compensation was going to be dependent on company achievements in years 2,3,4 and 5, rather than only year one, then we would probably see more long term strategic decisions by those executives
but again, if the stockholders of a company are content to what some would say 'overpay' their CEOs, then as the owners of the company, that is their right
now, if the company were unionized, it is doubtful the CEO would as easily be able to dismiss employees. but that topic likely deserves its own thread
 
Being able to borrow isn't the biggest problem the small business has.
that varies from business to business, but for many businesses today, inability to renew credit lines is their foremost concern
They aren't going to borrow if they don't know if they can pay it back.
sure they are. what do they care if they fail to pay it back (so long as they are not personally guaranteeing repayment of the loan). if the business folds for lack of access to capital and is unable to repay that loan then they are out of a job anyway
This administration has caused so much uncertainty no one is going to start a new business or expand when they have no idea what's coming down the road. They need permanent tax cuts.
you must have loved the last (mis)administration, which had as its answer for any problem: "tax cuts". notice that the financial melt down took place at the end of that "tax cutting" regime. that alone should tell you something (whether you choose to listen is another story)
do a google search for GAO report of tax payment. it will reveal that most corporations do NOT pay any taxes. taxes are an expense of doing business, where loopholes cannot be found. a few more percentage point in taxes is not going to affect a business unless it is so marginal that those few point make the difference between profitability and insolvency
no body and no business wants to pay more taxes. but to say that the tax rates, now the lowest in half a century, are adversely affecting business performance is beyond laughable
They need to know what's in the HC bill. They need to know what new regulations are coming their way concerning any cap and trade or energy bill.
Borrowing money is probably the farthest thing from their minds.
companies, just like consumers, would prefer to know what is on the horizon which will impact them. but we have had ADA requirements, EPA requirement, labor requirements imposed on business in the past and they continued to operate within those imposed constraints. the business of business is to make money. they will work around any imposed restraints to continue to make money. what affects them also affects their American business counterparts. now i will agree with you, that where newly imposed constraints impact American businesses where they do not impact the foreign competition, that aspect does adversely affect American business operation and formation in this now global economy
I'm glad the Rep. are continuing to say no to more spending.
you are more optimistic than i, as i see no sign that government spending is being reined in. my hope is you are right and i am wrong on this point
People will get off their money when they are comfortable about investing it.
actually, people, and especially businesses, are still trying to gauge in which direction the economy is headed. it is smart to hoard money during this deflationary period. what can be bought today might be bought cheaper tomorrow
and the banks unwillingness to lend is also tied to that factor
however, the multinational banks were infused with American taxpayer money while American community banks were not. that American taxpayer infused capital of the multinational banks is being lent to the south koreans, the israelis, the brazilians, the chinese. meanwhile, American small businesses are dying on the vine from lack of cash flow. the community banks, which are the predominant lenders to American small businesses, were hammered by the meltdown, too. and their profitability, and liquidity, suffers also from increased reserve requirements imposed after the meltdown, as well as from the decline of main street

the republican refusal to provide more capital to community banks is in direct opposition to America's needs*. small business is the generator of most new jobs. we have a consumer economy dependent on an employed, wage earning public. providing community banks with the means and the imperative to lend to America's small business community is essential if we hope to pull out of this (notso) Great Recession



* full disclosure. one of my company's business services is to write government guaranteed loan packages for community lenders. the potential for my bias is evident
 
What's wrong with CEO's being rewarded for increasing profits for those that matter?

Nothing. But did you notice that while profits double, CEO pay rose 300% and worker pay was up 4.3%.

Why do CEOs get basically ALL of the reward. Despite being the leader, they're not the only reason profit exists.

Why should someone whose company lost value and who resigned under the cloud of a harassment investigation get a $24 million bonus? Do you defend that practice.

I suppose if you were in California you'd be lusting for Carly Fiorina who claims she knows how to create jobs. She didn't create jobs. She fired people, the company lost 40% of its value under her reign and she was given a $45 golden parachute. That makes her ready to govern?

What other class of employee gets multi-million dollar bonuses for getting fired for incompetence?
 
I don't trust them any more than I trust government.

And here's why:

changeinceopaygraph.jpg


CEO salaries up 300% since 1995. Have profits risen 300% during that time? No. They didn't.

CEOs are fat, bloated, and extremely overpaid.

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.


Do you actually believe for one second that the CEO of the two largest banks in the world earn $200k/year? China is notorious for lying its ass off about how the state allocates money. They have an image of economic equality to protect, and they do it by announcing that they only pay those CEOs a tiny amount of money. I bet their monthly booze allowances are greater than $200k.

This is entirely an American phenomenon. In most other nations, CEOs aren't paid 400 to 500 times their employees. They're well compensated ($200,000 to $1.7 million), but it's not quite so outrageous.

That's the exact opposite of what your graph says. Even if we set aside the Chinese examples, you've got spanish guys making 13.6m and 6.8m, a Canadian guy making 9.5m, Aussies making 8 and 7 million, and an Italian making 5m. The US numbers on your graph are quite comparable.
 
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

Then why don’t he defend his position instead of just doing drivebys….check out his past post, all he does is post s*** and run.. After all this is called “DEBATE Politics “not hit and run politics.
 
Donc,

Probably because the GOP would prefer a TAX CUT for small business, where they ya know, keep more of their own money rather then giving them loans....

Silly to consider that logic, but hey, I guess if you think Business needs Gov't it does.

The bill that the republicans have blocked and stalled, included tax-cuts such as restaurant owners and retailers who remodel their stores or build new ones would get a tax credit. Businesses would be able recover capital improvements, thru depreciation.

I guess this(capital improvements, thru depreciation) is the one that was used in the eighties,if so it was called accelerated depreciation. If thats it,it was quite successful in getting some of the older trucks off the road,but alas its not to be,… the party of no has blocked it for political gain.So sad. :(
 
This thread isn't about corporations making money, it's about greedy CEO's laying off workers and getting compenated for it.

if that makes the shareholders money what's the problem?

Oh I remember. you think people start companies not to make MONEY but to pay the government taxes and provide jobs.

Hence the confusion
 
this kind of greed is what makes everyday workers snap. the board members taking care of each other, a good old boys club. **** em. they run a business into the ground, then get PAID for it.




CEOs lay off thousands, rake in millions - Business - U.S. business - msnbc.com

Despite the fact a lot of unions get too greedy for their own good its crap like this why I still think they are needed. I believe that companies should be able to pay their employees what ever they want to certian degree but they shouldn't rob Peter to pay Paul.
 
if that makes the shareholders money what's the problem?

Oh I remember. you think people start companies not to make MONEY but to pay the government taxes and provide jobs.

Hence the confusion

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom