• 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!

The economic recovery turns 2: Feel better yet?

I don't think the president has enough power, regardless of what party they are in (tea party or otherwise), to make much of an impact on our everyday lives. Hell, I don't think the government has that much of an overall impact.

Not immediately, at least.

The Health Care bill certainly will impact our every day lives... maybe it's not immediate but it's sure long lasting.
 
The president didn't pass that bill, though.

He proposed it's passage, he handed off the responsibility, his rhetoric for over a year supported it, he gave tons of speeches about it, he sent his administration out to talk it up (HHS Secretary for example), he then, signed it into law. So you're right, he didn't pass it, he just did everything BUT pass it.
 
He proposed it's passage, he handed off the responsibility, his rhetoric for over a year supported it, he gave tons of speeches about it, he sent his administration out to talk it up (HHS Secretary for example), he then, signed it into law. So you're right, he didn't pass it, he just did everything BUT pass it.

Sure, he supported and promoted it, but without congress on his side he doesn't have much power with regard to legislation.
 
Because companies are so much better off by paying CEO's more than they're worth, right? If the market did not demand those high salaries, then why do companies continue to pay them? Wouldn't the smarter company save a lot of money by not doing it?

if the board was looking out for shareholder interest yes, that should be the case.

But as the Pres and CEO are looking out for their interests, they nominate people to the board, and the people on the board are looking for thier own interests (unless they specifically represent a major shareholdr), and as the board's pay is often determined by the CEO and the CEO's pay is determined by the board, they have a serious conflict of issue regarding compensation. Which is why the Compensation commitee was introduced, and by god the Comp committee is paid for and choosen by the company so it is in their interest to recomend a higher rate of pay in order to be choosen again.


Overall high level management (pres, CEO, other Chiefs) the US are paid at least double what the same positions pay in similar companies in Germany and Japan.
 
How do car makers get the money for an auto manufacturing plant? You think they can do that on profits alone? Do you realize how many years it would take to build up the money for that investment through profit alone?

When your company makes 100s of millions/year, the only time you need capital investment other than reserves is for expansion. Lets take my example of giving the workers more money and taking some of the money from the CEO. Those same workers now have enough money to actually invest in the company, put into their 401ks (investment) etc. No matter how you look at it, the net result of taking money away from a CEO bonus and distributing it to the workers is a win-win-win situation.
 
Hello? It's in the ****ing New York Times. If they don't want their information out there, maybe they should put a lid on it.
The New York Times in not ranting about it on DP. That would be you.... and, as I said, it is none of your damn business unless you are an shareholder (owner). :roll:

.
 
When your company makes 100s of millions/year, the only time you need capital investment other than reserves is for expansion. Lets take my example of giving the workers more money and taking some of the money from the CEO. Those same workers now have enough money to actually invest in the company, put into their 401ks (investment) etc. No matter how you look at it, the net result of taking money away from a CEO bonus and distributing it to the workers is a win-win-win situation.

You probably know what you are suggesting is just silly. There is no such thing as a pot of money that folks decide how to divide. Nice in fairy tales, has nothing to do with real life.
 
You probably know what you are suggesting is just silly. There is no such thing as a pot of money that folks decide how to divide. Nice in fairy tales, has nothing to do with real life.

Please clarify. At my company and every other company I have worked at, yearly bonuses and salary raises were linked to profits...a set amount of money. Someone does decide how the money is divided. Usually, the board and the top execs. They decide on the dividend to the shareholders the bonuses of the top execs, how much goes into expansion or debt payment...the list goes on. Are you stating that for some reason they over look people's salaries?
 
Last edited:
Please clarify. At my company and every other company I have worked at yearly bonuses and salary raises were linked to profits...a set amount of money. Someone does decide how the money is divided. Usually, the board and the top execs. They decide on the dividend to the shareholders the bonuses of the top execs, how much goes into expansion or debt payment...the list goes on. Are you stating that for some reason they over look people's salries?


Have you ever put together the business plan for your corporation. I have done that for many years. No people's salaries are not overlooked. But they are viewed separately than CEO pay. Also the calculation is not on profits as such but as profits as a percent of the annual plan, plus other aspects not profit related. There might be goals for employee retention, working capital or any number of things.

What I can tell you is that I have never been with a company that cut CEO pay and paid other workers more because of it.
 
When your company makes 100s of millions/year, the only time you need capital investment other than reserves is for expansion.

Have you noticed our unemployment problem? Yeah, we need "capital investment."

Lets take my example of giving the workers more money and taking some of the money from the CEO. Those same workers now have enough money to actually invest in the company, put into their 401ks (investment) etc. No matter how you look at it, the net result of taking money away from a CEO bonus and distributing it to the workers is a win-win-win situation.

Your'e assuming too much. You're basically assuming that the money is better spent by the workers than the CEO. Is that true? Who's typically the better investor? The rich man or the poor man?
 
Please clarify. At my company and every other company I have worked at, yearly bonuses and salary raises were linked to profits...a set amount of money. Someone does decide how the money is divided. Usually, the board and the top execs. They decide on the dividend to the shareholders the bonuses of the top execs, how much goes into expansion or debt payment...the list goes on. Are you stating that for some reason they over look people's salaries?

You're talking about two different buckets of money. Capital money does not equal "payroll". Capital is meant for aquisition, expansion, reinvestment, or could be applied as a "success based capital" to expand existing products and services to increase competition. Bonuses are sometimes derived from profits which are over and above expected revenue of a company. For example, my company identifies is sales and revenue are > 95% of expectation, a % based on position and business unit are provided. The more a business unit risks, the higher the pay out up to a ceiling of say 150%.
 
Your'e assuming too much. You're basically assuming that the money is better spent by the workers than the CEO. Is that true? Who's typically the better investor? The rich man or the poor man?

The middle class are. The rich typically do not invest large percentages of their money. They sit on it. And yes, I am assuming that giving the poor more money, after cost have been covered and it is done willingly (not minimum wage laws) would lead to economic expansion.

Case in point: The "rich" are getting richer right now. Economic expansion is low because demand is not there. If the "poor" suddenly had disposable income, there would be demand. The money would circulate, people would be lifted out of poverty, those people would invest, economy would rebound.

You probably know what you are suggesting is just silly. There is no such thing as a pot of money that folks decide how to divide. Nice in fairy tales, has nothing to do with real life.

Its not exactly silly. The board of directors of a company make decisions on behalf of its stock holders/investors. They decide to give the CEO a bonus of whatever amount they deem is worthy to award him and keep him working for that company. In turn, the CEO could (and probably should) take some of that money and give it to his employees.

I advocate a social shift, one based on morality and the difference principal. Its possible and should be sought after and fought for.
 
Last edited:
if the board was looking out for shareholder interest yes, that should be the case.

But as the Pres and CEO are looking out for their interests, they nominate people to the board, and the people on the board are looking for thier own interests (unless they specifically represent a major shareholdr), and as the board's pay is often determined by the CEO and the CEO's pay is determined by the board, they have a serious conflict of issue regarding compensation. Which is why the Compensation commitee was introduced, and by god the Comp committee is paid for and choosen by the company so it is in their interest to recomend a higher rate of pay in order to be choosen again.


Overall high level management (pres, CEO, other Chiefs) the US are paid at least double what the same positions pay in similar companies in Germany and Japan.
Seems to me that one would have to be rather stupid to buy shares in a company where the board was not looking out for shareholders. :doh

.
 
Seems to me that one would have to be rather stupid to buy shares in a company where the board was not looking out for shareholders. :doh

.

How else can you explain compensation for top executives in the US more then double that of top executives at similar positions in similar companies in Japan and Germany?
 
Get the skills and experience first. Be born to rich parents, get a free pass into Harvard or Yale, and join an influential fraternity.

Fixed it for you.
 
How else can you explain compensation for top executives in the US more then double that of top executives at similar positions in similar companies in Japan and Germany?
If you are not a stockholder, its none of your damn business. If you think they are not looking out for stockholders and you own the stock, you are just stupid. I will stipulate there are a lot of stupid people in the USA. ;)

.
 
If you are not a stockholder, its none of your damn business. If you think they are not looking out for stockholders and you own the stock, you are just stupid. I will stipulate there are a lot of stupid people in the USA. ;)

.

Your position contradicts the evidence. In a year in which Wall Street required massive bailouts (2009), their bonuses to top level employees increased by around 17%; even though the year before WS firms lost a combined $40+ billion. Therefore, i will stipulate that you have no business discussing such topics ;)
 
Your position contradicts the evidence. In a year in which Wall Street required massive bailouts (2009), their bonuses to top level employees increased by around 17%; even though the year before WS firms lost a combined $40+ billion. Therefore, i will stipulate that you have no business discussing such topics ;)
Nothing you said contradicts what I stated with the exception that stupid politicans elected by stupid voters decided to give crooks some taxparyer money.

Are you advocating the government control compensation or what is your point?

.
 
If you are not a stockholder, its none of your damn business. If you think they are not looking out for stockholders and you own the stock, you are just stupid. I will stipulate there are a lot of stupid people in the USA. ;)

.

Selling stock doesn't change the culture of a business.
 
Selling stock doesn't change the culture of a business.
If your stupid politicians will quit giving them taxpayer money, why do you care?

.
 
If your stupid politicians will quit giving them taxpayer money, why do you care?

.

Its not "stupid politicians" that's the problem. Its the system. Case in point, both parties voted for the bail out. Even tea party repubs tacitly support the measure as an extreme case. The system is broken, the system is what is corrupt. Putting the "right people in office" will not solve the problem, it will simply corrupt those people. This is a truth that Friedman and Hayke knew quite well. Its why the left is displeased with Obama.
 
Back
Top Bottom