• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

income inequality debate

Some scholars believe that this period of growth has now run its course, and a return to the pre-war norm is inevitable. Inherited wealth will once again earn higher rates of return than one can make by working. Growth will be too slow for most people to have any hope of moving up, or of their children having a better life. Some would say this world has already arrived - how many people, outside the 1%, have seen their real incomes increase more than 1-2% in the past 10 years?

Hundreds of Millions right?
 
I was referencing the western economies only, not the Asian economies which are still in catch up mode. That too will run its course in the next couple decades, though.
 
Along those lines, here are a couple of things that should be illegal. It should be illegal to give CEOs/execs bonuses when the company loses more money than it did the year before. There should also be a ban on golden parachutes for CEOs/execs of companies if they are fired.
 
Someone explain to me why we shouldn't just make it illegal for executives of public companies to own their own stock. Surely you can incentivize them through salary to build shareholder value.

http://www.polygon.com/2014/5/12/5710500/ea-executives-sell-massive-stock-amounts

They mostly do it for the tax benefit. Remove that and you would just as likely so SARs are other non-equity mimics of stock value.

I don't see why it should be illegal for an executive to own stock in the company he manages.
 
Along those lines, here are a couple of things that should be illegal. It should be illegal to give CEOs/execs bonuses when the company loses more money than it did the year before. There should also be a ban on golden parachutes for CEOs/execs of companies if they are fired.

Neither of these should be illegal. Companies should be able to manage themselves in the manner they see fit without daddy government doing it for them often because of the flavor of the day based on sensationailized news reports that are just wrong.
 
Along those lines, here are a couple of things that should be illegal. It should be illegal to give CEOs/execs bonuses when the company loses more money than it did the year before. There should also be a ban on golden parachutes for CEOs/execs of companies if they are fired.

Out of curiosity, who did you vote for in 2012?

From factcheck.org:

Federal Debt

The federal debt has resumed rising since our last report, when it had ticked down temporarily due to a seasonal surge in revenue as persons and corporations paid their 2012 income taxes. As of Oct. 4, the amount the Treasury owed to the public was just under $11.94 trillion, an increase of 89.3 percent since the day Obama first became president. That’s still slightly below the 90 percent rise we reported in our April report.

However, the Obama administration recently projected an annual deficit of $750 billion in the fiscal year that began Oct. 1, and $626 billion the year after. At that rate, the debt owed to the public will more than double during the Obama presidency.

Critics of federal debt levels often cite another, larger figure for total federal debt, which includes money the federal government owes to itself through such devices as the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. That total debt figure stood at just under $16.75 trillion on Oct. 4. That’s an increase of 57.6 percent since Obama was first sworn in.
 
Last edited:
Someone explain to me why we shouldn't just make it illegal for executives of public companies to own their own stock. Surely you can incentivize them through salary to build shareholder value.

http://www.polygon.com/2014/5/12/5710500/ea-executives-sell-massive-stock-amounts

1) I have an idea and start a business. It turns out my idea was really good and my company starts to make money. I grow it for a few years and then see an opportunity to expand rapidly so I take my company public. Unfortunately I'm now faced with either giving up my control of the company (ie determining if it's sold to a larger corporation, who's on the board, whether or not I am retained) or giving up control of the smaller day to day decisions.

2) A company is struggling and has cash flow issues. The board finds a woman who they believe to be just the person to turn the company around, take them out of danger, and put them in a position where they can thrive once again. One problem, they don't have the cash to pay this woman her market value and they can't hire her away from another organization. She believes strongly in herself and would have been willing to take little or no cash today for a share of the company. Unfortunately it's not legal for the company to hire her in this manner. She stays where she is, the company can't find a strong leader willing to work for them for the cash they can currently offer so they settle for who they can afford. They file bankruptcy a couple of years latter.
 
Neither of these should be illegal. Companies should be able to manage themselves in the manner they see fit without daddy government doing it for them often because of the flavor of the day based on sensationailized news reports that are just wrong.

I agree that neither of those things should be illegal. Do you think anything should be done about executive pay? The amount of cronyism and benchmarking against each other they all do to jack up their compensation is out of hand. I'm not sure what the solution is but I think the current system sucks.
 
I agree that neither of those things should be illegal. Do you think anything should be done about executive pay? The amount of cronyism and benchmarking against each other they all do to jack up their compensation is out of hand. I'm not sure what the solution is but I think the current system sucks.

Less loopholes for the deductability of excess executive compensation?
 
The best thing that could be done for corporate governance - whether relating to compensation or otherwise - is to require corporate boards to have real stakeholders with real power at the table. Basically I'm thinking of the "Rhenish model" of corporate governance, with labor and government representatives on the board. It's kind of hard for a board to vote to pay the CEO $20,000,000 a year for leading a losing product when there's a guy sitting right there on the board making $20/hour in the front end of the business. The concept (nay, religion) that corporations exist only to make money for shareholders is wrongheaded, ahistorical, and has not been a net positive for our economy or our society.
 
The best thing that could be done for corporate governance - whether relating to compensation or otherwise - is to require corporate boards to have real stakeholders with real power at the table. Basically I'm thinking of the "Rhenish model" of corporate governance, with labor and government representatives on the board. It's kind of hard for a board to vote to pay the CEO $20,000,000 a year for leading a losing product when there's a guy sitting right there on the board making $20/hour in the front end of the business. The concept (nay, religion) that corporations exist only to make money for shareholders is wrongheaded, ahistorical, and has not been a net positive for our economy or our society.

But it is reality, primarily due to our antitrust laws. The philanthropic side of the Bell Labs model went out the window when the monopoly got broken up. Obvioulsy some would argue that the breakup was nonetheless justified and necessary, but it has focused the corporate intent solely on shareholder return.
 
But it is reality, primarily due to our antitrust laws. The philanthropic side of the Bell Labs model went out the window when the monopoly got broken up. Obvioulsy some would argue that the breakup was nonetheless justified and necessary, but it has focused the corporate intent solely on shareholder return.

I agree, the issue is tied into antitrust and labor law, and others as well, not just the Delaware Corporate Code. Another example is what happened with the VW plant in SC - VW wanted to set up a German-style model, but our labor laws can only comprehend an adversarial labor vs. management model.
 
BuX2fpzIAAAZc77.0.0.jpg
 
Well I dont know jack, but that looks terrible for an economy.

Quick, one of you free market whatevers explain this away and tell us how this is better so I can sleep
 
I'm not trusting any chart about the American economy created by someone named Pavlina Tcherneva. Maybe Mohammed El Jihad has some data he would like to share as well.

:couch:
 
I'm not trusting any chart about the American economy created by someone named Pavlina Tcherneva. Maybe Mohammed El Jihad has some data he would like to share as well.

:couch:


Every time I don't think you can make yourself look worse than you have in the past, you prove me wrong. WOW! Just WOW about this post.

Use many stereotypes?
 
possibly a typo.....74, 80 and 81 along with 08 were not good years for the economy.
 
Back
Top