• 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
See post #7.

The first line in the article is wrong.
Well we were at the closest sense the Great Depression...

And,

So you disagree with the study done by Equilar that finds there is a 23% gain from 2009?



We are not "at or near-Depression level unemployment."
We have been at the closest sense the Great Depression.

It's deceptive, too, in that it looks only at companies that made billions - such firms are likely to have been successful.

It looked at all the major corporations and companies, so what? Why does that matter? Its not "deceptive" if it openly tells you that its looking at the major companies and corporations...

I've already posted one example of a CEO whose compensation decreased drastically.
One! One!? One!? We should feel so bad for him and give him a huge tax break! :roll:

Then it gets to the heart of the matter, it's thesis: If government is broke, business has no right to be successful.
Never saw anywhere that it stated or began to state that "business has no right to be successful". Wondering how you got that out of the article or the snipit you posted.




The whole piece is replete with anti-capitalist buzz words.
Well it is a socialist article...



Where is "Workers of the world, unite!" If I read nothing but bilge like this all day, I'd be pissed, too.

Well maybe you should stop being so content...
 
They should but they wont...the pigs at the trough want moar n moAR and theyve been taking it
 
Since CEO pay is almost entirely based on options and incentives, I don't have a problem with it.
No, for some CEO's this is true for others there are other mechanisms for getting money from the company, e.g. deferred compensation.

Pay is determined on the success of the company, specifically book value..
Mostly true, especially true with pay that can be seen.

Now I would have a problem if a company was drowning in red ink and its CEO was getting more and more money, like the banking giants were doing during the FNMA and FHLMC (that's Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for those of you without a degree in finance) days.
You only mentioned 2, but the list is very long, e.g. Bank of America. Did you have a motive in selecting those two?

However, if a company was going "lean and mean" to propel themselves up, then the CEOs should get a reward for shrewd business practices. The truth is that we were running on a faulty business model for many decades, as GM has taught us in spades..
Yes, but a division CEO I knew was rewarded regardless of performance. The he would sit with us at times and brag about the new toys, e.g. motorcycle, he just bought.

Besides, with the difficulty involved in being a CEO, they earn the right to demand a lot.
The same CEO put in fewer hours than most others did. One of his best skills was feigning surprise when things went wrong.

I posted before: Almost nobody knows how much CEO’s are paid. They get money from the company via mechanisms that don’t have to even be revealed to the whole board, or to stock holders, or to the government. Some of these techniques have been made illegal, but not enough. One favorite of mine, which is now has to be revealed to the board, is differed pay. Money earned this year but paid to the CEO after he leaves the company. So, what pay are you asking about, the pay we know about or the pay we don’t know about? Do you want to be made happy by what you’re told or by what is real? (I had a short conversation with a high level accountant at a large US corporation that confirmed other reports I’d read.)
 
it depends on the CEO and on the worker. I, for example, have been promoted twice since the recession started, am doing much better than I was before. It might be good for individual CEO's who wish to send a "we're all in this together" message to reduce their own pay (work for a dollar a year or something as Steve Jobs does); and/or simply take stock in lieu of cash. But that is up to the individual company negotiating with the CEO and the worker.
 
I agree, CEOs should take cuts as well, in fact everyone should. That said though, most of the money will be saved at the bottom, simply due to the large number of workers there. Even if you cut a few million dollars from the CEO salary, it's still going to be a drop in the bucket compared to cutting the wages of thousand of workers.
 
CEOs of public companies? Depends on the strategy of the board and the CEO and what the shareholders want to gripe about.
They will always come out ahead, any token "Salary reduction" would primarily be for show anyway, it would do *nothing* to address all this wrongfully perceived injustice.

I can assure you that if you spent more time and energy on your own career and financial situation, it would yield far greater, and longer lasting returns on your investment, rather than on CEO bashing or CEO salary reduction gimicks. It may even be more fun.
 
I agree that CEOs should take pay cuts too, it is morally wrong to screw the people on the bottom who do most of the physical work to fatten the pockets of those on top. But there is nothing we can legally do and nor should we legally require them to do anything. We would be treading on dangerous ground if we were to make a maximum wage.

Actually, there's a lot we could do legally - buy stocks and during the stockholders meeting use those stock to pass in-house rules limiting the pay of the CEOs.

CEOs are going to limit anything themselves. However, they are still beholden to stockholders. So only the stockholders can enforce limited pay for CEOs.
 
If a CEO's company makes money, why shouldn' the CEO get a raise, like everybody else? Including the workers in the mailroom?

Because the employees, including the workers in the mailroom, don't necessarily get their wages raised whenever the CEOs get a raise.
 
CEOs of public companies? Depends on the strategy of the board and the CEO and what the shareholders want to gripe about.
They will always come out ahead, any token "Salary reduction" would primarily be for show anyway, it would do *nothing* to address all this wrongfully perceived injustice.

I can assure you that if you spent more time and energy on your own career and financial situation, it would yield far greater, and longer lasting returns on your investment, rather than on CEO bashing or CEO salary reduction gimicks. It may even be more fun.

Actually, there is time in life to do both. It's not an either/or proposition.
 
I agree, but i don't think the government should'nt do anything to do about it.
 
Because the employees, including the workers in the mailroom, don't necessarily get their wages raised whenever the CEOs get a raise.

Maybe not, but they always get their money before the shareholders get theirs.

Most workers get annual performance reviews and if they meet their job's criteria to a satisfactory level, they get a raise - that is if they are fortunate enough to work for a company that knows how to make money.
 
Well we were at the closest sense the Great Depression...

And,

So you disagree with the study done by Equilar that finds there is a 23% gain from 2009?




We have been at the closest sense the Great Depression.



It looked at all the major corporations and companies, so what? Why does that matter? Its not "deceptive" if it openly tells you that its looking at the major companies and corporations...


One! One!? One!? We should feel so bad for him and give him a huge tax break! :roll:


Never saw anywhere that it stated or began to state that "business has no right to be successful". Wondering how you got that out of the article or the snipit you posted.





Well it is a socialist article...





Well maybe you should stop being so content...

I haven't read the study but I won't question it.

Yes, I found only one CEO who took a pay decrease, and I stumbled onto that one. I'm sure there are more.

The article is deceptive in that it exploits one study that appears to have examined only successful companies and then argues that CEOs are greedy.

I'm sure you didn't see where it says business has no right to be successful. It didn't in so few words, but it says that CEO pay increases must be considered against the backdrop of government cutbacks. I'm paraphrasig from memory, but that is I believe the thesis. And it is wrong.

I'm much more content dealing with my company and my future in it than I ever would be in any socialist economy where my labor would be undervalued and heavily taxed.
 
Last edited:
I can only say I would prefer to work with a boss who shares the burden. I'll go to war with that type of person. If he's in it for himself, odds are he has people working for him the same way. Just saying . . . .
 
I can only say I would prefer to work with a boss who shares the burden. I'll go to war with that type of person. If he's in it for himself, odds are he has people working for him the same way. Just saying . . . .

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.
 
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.

Well, that's what it used to mean. The future has yet to be determined.
 
CEOs of public companies? Depends on the strategy of the board and the CEO and what the shareholders want to gripe about.
They will always come out ahead, any token "Salary reduction" would primarily be for show anyway, it would do *nothing* to address all this wrongfully perceived injustice.

I can assure you that if you spent more time and energy on your own career and financial situation, it would yield far greater, and longer lasting returns on your investment, rather than on CEO bashing or CEO salary reduction gimicks. It may even be more fun.

You don't know that people participating in this thread aren't investing time and energy into their careers. I certainly am. I suspect I'm not the only one.
 
Why wouldn't it still mean that?

It's just not the way things are anymore. Look at BMW. There is no job security. There is no appreciation for a job well done. If it can be done cheaper elsewhere, cya-bye. You have no job. People are perceived as "overpaid", thanks to the unions, so fire them and start over. That's the America I see now.
 
It's just not the way things are anymore. Look at BMW. There is no job security. There is no appreciation for a job well done. If it can be done cheaper elsewhere, cya-bye. You have no job. People are perceived as "overpaid", thanks to the unions, so fire them and start over. That's the America I see now.

Well, we don't agree.

Of course companies want to reduce overhead and yes if they can produce the same product with less expense. Doing so is just good business. I don't agree that most corporations are eager to dump their people onto the unemployment rolls to save a penny on the dollar, tho.

"Firing them and starting over" is a very expensive and difficult proposition, as is closing down and moving elsewhere. And there's no guarantee of a better result.
 
Last edited:
Well, we don't agree.

Of course companies want to reduce overhead and yes if they can produce the same product with less expense. Doing so is just good business. I don't agree that most corporations are eager to dump their people onto the unemployment rolls to save a penny on the dollar, tho.

"Firing them and starting over" is a very expensive and difficult proposition, as is closing down and moving elsewhere. And there's no guarantee of a better result.

I want to believe you. Time will tell.
 
I want to believe you. Time will tell.

Business managers are in the same, uncertain atmosphere as everyone else. They don't know what Obama is going to do, or what he'll succeed at doing, but they sense he is hostile to their interests and they are waiting him out.
 
CEOs of public companies? Depends on the strategy of the board and the CEO and what the shareholders want to gripe about.
They will always come out ahead, any token "Salary reduction" would primarily be for show anyway, it would do *nothing* to address all this wrongfully perceived injustice.

I can assure you that if you spent more time and energy on your own career and financial situation, it would yield far greater, and longer lasting returns on your investment, rather than on CEO bashing or CEO salary reduction gimicks. It may even be more fun.
I had more patents than anyone else in the division. I helped more other engineers develop patents than anyone else. I did a lot of mentoring, I think more than anyone else I was aware of. From engineers that I sent out the door I got thanks months later because what I had communicated to them was required everywhere, they were doing it now and now successful. The corporate CEO, from another state, could recognize me when he saw me down the hall and facing away from him, and call my name; but, always to work on a problem, never for a complement. My tasks included developing international standards in a way to benefit our business and the marketplace for our product. My pay was high but not what it should be. (There was prejudice at our division that affected many, and I was on the wrong side of it.) About ten years ago we had a RIF at our division. I volunteered because of the prejudice and I could meet the retirement requirements, though normally I wouldn’t retire for ten more years. (I found that I was already on the list later.) I’ve not been employed since. So what has happened to our net worth with my unemployment for ten years? It has tripled. If I continued working it would have cost us plenty. We invested in real estate and stock bought and sold mostly at the right time, I transferred wealth to us. I didn’t add much value to the economy when compared to what I was doing when employed. But I did what you advise “I can assure you that if you spent more time and energy on your own career and financial situation, it would yield far greater, and longer lasting returns on your investment, rather than on CEO bashing or CEO salary reduction gimmicks. It may even be more fun.” But, I sure didn’t benefit many other people by doing what you suggest.
 
I haven't read the study but I won't question it.
You seemed to be disagreeing with the study and questioning it.


Yes, I found only one CEO who took a pay decrease, and I stumbled onto that one. I'm sure there are more.
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.

The article is deceptive in that it exploits one study that appears to have examined only successful companies and then argues that CEOs are greedy.
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.

I'm sure you didn't see where it says business has no right to be successful.
Im sure i didnt cuz it never said that.

It didn't in so few words, but it says that CEO pay increases must be considered against the backdrop of government cutbacks. I'm paraphrasig from memory, but that is I believe the thesis. And it is wrong.
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."

I'm much more content dealing with my company and my future in it than I ever would be in any socialist economy where my labor would be undervalued and heavily taxed.

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

Yup, that's my perception exactly.
 
Back
Top Bottom