• 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?

phattonez said:
There's a reason that won't happen. You have to prove your skills before you can become a CEO (not a knock against you personally, I'm just saying that it's not as easy as you're trying to portray it).
Click to expand...

is that why the guys at Goldman Sachs got their multi million dollar bonuses, because their great skill made a great profit for everyone?

Landing a CEO job is a lot more about politics and who you know than it is about the skills you possess.
 
Dittohead not! said:
is that why the guys at Goldman Sachs got their multi million dollar bonuses, because their great skill made a great profit for everyone?

Landing a CEO job is a lot more about politics and who you know than it is about the skills you possess.
Click to expand...

And that's based on what? CEO's don't go to business school? They don't move their way up the ladder with smaller management jobs? It seems that you're buying into a myth rather than looking at reality.
 
phattonez said:
Remember that commodity speculation would be pretty much dead if we had a stable currency.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're basing that on. Commodity prices fluctuate according to supply and demand.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I'm not sure what you're basing that on. Commodity prices fluctuate according to supply and demand.
Click to expand...

Commodities are a hedge against monetary manipulation. If there was no currency manipulation, then the potential gain from commodity speculation would be much lower than it currently is. Think about it, if you think that the government is going to double the monetary supply overnight, then you would expect the price of a commodity to soar, wouldn't you? So by investing a lot of money in that commodity, you could make a lot of money. Take away the currency manipulation, and the potential gain from commodity investment goes way down.
 
phattonez said:
And that's based on what? CEO's don't go to business school? They don't move their way up the ladder with smaller management jobs? It seems that you're buying into a myth rather than looking at reality.
Click to expand...

If you think skills and abilities will land you that nine million dollar salary, then you're the one buying into myth. No, the big money jobs are meted out according to who you know. It's not a whole lot different from politics. Do you get to be a senator, representative, or president based on having skills that are superior to your opponents'?
 
Dittohead not! said:
If you think skills and abilities will land you that nine million dollar salary, then you're the one buying into myth. No, the big money jobs are meted out according to who you know. It's not a whole lot different from politics. Do you get to be a senator, representative, or president based on having skills that are superior to your opponents'?
Click to expand...

Show me the man who gets a CEO job without any skills or previous experience.
 
Ockham said:
Perhaps - but I don't put much weight into hypotheticals, and I certainly don't buy into the whole class warfare stuff. Look, bottom line is if the situation were reversed and CEO's were getting royally screwed and the workers had the opportunity to make 25% more, of course they'd take it, in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...

Here is the key difference, if a CEO of a major corp loses 25% of his pay, he doesn't feel it well it counts, his stomach. When employees (as a class) get 25% less, they tend to have to rely on charity to not starve. IMO, all rich people who get millions in bonuses should take 50% of those millions and split evenly among their lowest paid workers. Theres you recovery. Too bad it will never happen

phattonez said:
Show me the man who gets a CEO job without any skills or previous experience.
Click to expand...

That wasn't his point. We do not have a meritocracy. The people who are the best, aren't necessarily the ones to be in positions of power.
 
Last edited:
xpiher said:
Here is the key difference, if a CEO of a major corp loses 25% of his pay, he doesn't feel it well it counts, his stomach. When employees (as a class) get 25% less, they tend to have to rely on charity to not starve. IMO, all rich people who get millions in bonuses should take 50% of those millions and split evenly among their lowest paid workers. Theres you recovery. Too bad it will never happen
Click to expand...

Except the poor typically don't know how to invest, and then there goes all of your growth.
 
phattonez said:
Show me the man who gets a CEO job without any skills or previous experience.
Click to expand...

That's not what I said.

There are thousands of people who possess high levels of skill who don't make anywhere close to nine million.
 
phattonez said:
Except the poor typically don't know how to invest, and then there goes all of your growth.
Click to expand...

Do you understand economics at all? The poor don't need to invest! They can spend all that money, the money will circulate 100x over and create demand 100x over. It will eventually reach people who know how to and want to invest, but prior to that commerce will increase! If a CEO makes 100million in a bonus and splits 50million of that between 10k workers, those 10k workers now have 5k more to spend and pay down debts. If that CEO only has 1k employees who are "poor" then those 1k employees now have 50k each!
 
Last edited:
Dittohead not! said:
That's not what I said.

There are thousands of people who possess high levels of skill who don't make anywhere close to nine million.
Click to expand...

Because it's not skill that determines how valuable you are. It's how much your skills are demanded.

So again, show me the man who becomes a CEO with no skill or experience. After all, you said it was all about who you know and not results, so show me the proof.
 
xpiher said:
Do you understand economics at all? The poor don't need to invest! They can spend all that money, the money will circulate 100x over and create demand 100x over. It will eventually reach people who know how to and want to invest, but prior to that commerce will increase! If a CEO makes 100million in a bonus and splits 50million of that between 10k workers, those 10k workers now have 5k more to spend and pay down debts. If that CEO only has 1k employees who are "poor" then those 1k employees now have 50k each!
Click to expand...

Ha, who doesn't understand economics? Companies don't expand and hire on profits. If they don't have capital they're not going to grow.
 
phattonez said:
Because it's not skill that determines how valuable you are. It's how much your skills are demanded.

So again, show me the man who becomes a CEO with no skill or experience. After all, you said it was all about who you know and not results, so show me the proof.
Click to expand...

How people become CEOs:


People become CEOs through a variety of reasons; many of which have little to do with competence in achieving organizational goals. Most CEOs are above average in intelligence, and conscientious in trying to do a good job. Yet, many could be stronger in the areas of governance, analytical skills, and ability to predict impending changes. Some come to the CEO job with psychological flaws or character weaknesses which can undermine their competence.
Click to expand...
 
xpiher said:
Here is the key difference, if a CEO of a major corp loses 25% of his pay, he doesn't feel it well it counts, his stomach. When employees (as a class) get 25% less, they tend to have to rely on charity to not starve. IMO, all rich people who get millions in bonuses should take 50% of those millions and split evenly among their lowest paid workers. Theres you recovery. Too bad it will never happen
Click to expand...

The poor in the country are by and large obese, VERY few have ever truly known "starvation."

xpiher said:
That wasn't his point. We do not have a meritocracy. The people who are the best, aren't necessarily the ones to be in positions of power.
Click to expand...

Because of protectionism, cronyism which is enabled by spending, and corporatocracy.
 
phattonez said:
Please, what is this all based on?
Click to expand...

A study by the University of Phoenix.

But, why do we need a study? Anyone who has been paying attention, anyone who has worked in a large organization, knows how the system works. Sure, you have to have some skills, but there are many people with the skills. There is no one picking out the most skillful to be in charge. It's more who you know, who knows you, and being in the right place at the right time. Having a family name that people recognize is a big factor as well.

It's not much different in politics. Are there, or are there not many, many Americans who could do a better job of running the country than the people currently in charge?
 
phattonez said:
There's a reason that won't happen. You have to prove your skills before you can become a CEO (not a knock against you personally, I'm just saying that it's not as easy as you're trying to portray it).
Click to expand...

OMG, dude. I was joking. Sort of thought that was self-evident.
 
Dittohead not! said:
A study by the University of Phoenix.

But, why do we need a study? Anyone who has been paying attention, anyone who has worked in a large organization, knows how the system works. Sure, you have to have some skills, but there are many people with the skills. There is no one picking out the most skillful to be in charge. It's more who you know, who knows you, and being in the right place at the right time. Having a family name that people recognize is a big factor as well.

It's not much different in politics. Are there, or are there not many, many Americans who could do a better job of running the country than the people currently in charge?
Click to expand...

And how did they determine that a CEO was good or bad? How is it that they know better than the market?
 
phattonez said:
And how did they determine that a CEO was good or bad? How is it that they know better than the market?
Click to expand...

The market for corporate CEO's is gamed in favor of the CEO's through compensation commitees. And any gamed market is not a reliable indicator of value
 
phattonez said:
Ha, who doesn't understand economics? Companies don't expand and hire on profits. If they don't have capital they're not going to grow.
Click to expand...

Capital isn't only gained by investment, its gained also by people spending money on the product/service you provide. Take my same example and apply it to a car company. Those people that got a 50k bonus now have enough money to buy the car they make and couldn't afford prior. Many would buy the car as a sign of loyalty and wealth.


phattonez said:
And how did they determine that a CEO was good or bad? How is it that they know better than the market?
Click to expand...

The market doesn't determine CEO positions, thats the point. You can see if a CEO is good if the CEO makes the company more profitable, or keep profit around the same level despite dire economic conditions. If your company is hemerging money and you stay as CEO, you aren't staying because of the market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom