• 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!

Good read on CEO pay and stakeholder governance

Baconwfu said:
Outside of railroads and regulated monopolies....name a few
Click to expand...

The most simple example would be areas with one cable/internet provider.

A more complex example stems from the fact that many of the goods we buy are made up of many different products provided by many different vendors. It would take an inordinate amount of research to simply "buy elsewhere" and find out which products don't use the part, packaging, or whatever that a customer doesn't want to buy.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
From the article:

"Just about every spring, the season of corporate proxy votes, we see the rankings of the highest-paid CEOs, topped by men like David Cote of Honeywell, who in 2013 took home $16 million in salary and bonus, and another $9 million in stock options."

Just by way of comaprison, Cote (who leads a company employing more than 130,000 people and generating almost $40 billion in revenue) made less in salary/bonus than any of Amare Stoudemire, Rudy Gay, Zach Randolph, Masahiro Tanaka, Carl Crawford, or Troy Tulowitzki.
And if you don't like it, then just like BKF tunes out the NBA, then don't buy anything fron Honeywell or invest in their stock. But then don't complain when your 401k or IRA tanks.
Click to expand...

Again apples and oranges. It's astonishing you don't understand the difference.

No one pays $50-1000 a night to watch a CEO do his job. TV networks don't pay billions to televise board meetings.

Trying the two shows a glaring lack of understanding of how these businesses work .
 
tjcmd said:
Just about everything about government has gotten bigger in the last thirty years. Onerous regulation, higher spending and much higher debt. I think a lot of this funny money created by the Fed went straight into the pockets of the crony capitalists:
Click to expand...

Meh. The economy and population have gotten a lot bigger in the last 30 years, too. Resulting in this trend, which doesn't quite match your narrative.

fredgraph.png
 
And this one.

fredgraph.png


The Federal government employs around 80% of the people it did in 1991. Total government employment throughout the economy also shows a similar steady downward decline since 1991.

ETA: Notice the steady uptick in government jobs during the Reagan era, and the declines under Clinton and Obama.
 
Last edited:
PhDeac said:
The most simple example would be areas with one cable/internet provider.

A more complex example stems from the fact that many of the goods we buy are made up of many different products provided by many different vendors. It would take an inordinate amount of research to simply "buy elsewhere" and find out which products don't use the part, packaging, or whatever that a customer doesn't want to buy.
Click to expand...

I'll give you internet, because in some places you do only have one option (although I think FiOS and Uverse is pretty widespread in metropolitan areas), Satellite internet is an option but expensive and crazy slow, although almost everyone has two options for legitimate TV media (cable/satellite).
I can see what you're getting at with your second point, but there are niche markets everywhere (i.e. organic foods) where consumers demanded something and markets responded. If there is a legitimate reason someone wouldn't want to buy something from some company or made by some process, then there will be a lot of other people who feel the same way and someone will step in and fill that market niche.
If an individual, for some unique reason, didn't want to buy anything made buy or containing products made by 3M or GE or something, yeah, that would be difficult, but that's life.
In regards to CEO pay, the amount the CEO gets paid has almost nothing to do with the customers. It's not as if a company can pass along the costs of its CEO's benefit package to the customers or it will "charge more" to pay for that expensive golden parachute.
 
I have no problem with people making tons of money. However, I have major problems with many aspects of CEO pay. If you don't succeed, you shouldn't get bonuses. There should be no such things as golden parachutes whether as a retirement or as a way to get rid of someone. That's what the stock options are for. If a company underperforms, stock options should be deleted from compensation.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
From the article:

"Just about every spring, the season of corporate proxy votes, we see the rankings of the highest-paid CEOs, topped by men like David Cote of Honeywell, who in 2013 took home $16 million in salary and bonus, and another $9 million in stock options."

Just by way of comaprison, Cote (who leads a company employing more than 130,000 people and generating almost $40 billion in revenue) made less in salary/bonus than any of Amare Stoudemire, Rudy Gay, Zach Randolph, Masahiro Tanaka, Carl Crawford, or Troy Tulowitzki.
And if you don't like it, then just like BKF tunes out the NBA, then don't buy anything fron Honeywell or invest in their stock. But then don't complain when your 401k or IRA tanks.
Click to expand...

Yeah exactly! Make the easy decision to avoid purchasing any of Honeywell's products. I mean how many could there be?

http://honeywell.com/Products-Services/Pages/alpha.aspx

Right....gonna be pretty damn hard to simply avoid buying anything from them in my opinion.
 
PhDeac said:
Plenty examples of customers who can't simply "buy elsewhere." Leave your vacuum, bullets.
Click to expand...

Wakeforest22890 said:
Yeah exactly! Make the easy decision to avoid purchasing any of Honeywell's products. I mean how many could there be?

http://honeywell.com/Products-Services/Pages/alpha.aspx

Right....gonna be pretty damn hard to simply avoid buying anything from them in my opinion.
Click to expand...

The problem is so endemic, if a consumer were to decide "I'm not going to buy anything from companies with overpaid CEOs" then he would basically be committing to avoiding all publicly traded companies and plenty of privately-held ones.
 
Baconwfu said:
I'll give you internet, because in some places you do only have one option (although I think FiOS and Uverse is pretty widespread in metropolitan areas), Satellite internet is an option but expensive and crazy slow, although almost everyone has two options for legitimate TV media (cable/satellite).
I can see what you're getting at with your second point, but there are niche markets everywhere (i.e. organic foods) where consumers demanded something and markets responded. If there is a legitimate reason someone wouldn't want to buy something from some company or made by some process, then there will be a lot of other people who feel the same way and someone will step in and fill that market niche.
If an individual, for some unique reason, didn't want to buy anything made buy or containing products made by 3M or GE or something, yeah, that would be difficult, but that's life.
In regards to CEO pay, the amount the CEO gets paid has almost nothing to do with the customers. It's not as if a company can pass along the costs of its CEO's benefit package to the customers or it will "charge more" to pay for that expensive golden parachute.
Click to expand...

So you agree with me but "that's life."
 
Last edited:
Deacon923 said:
The problem is so endemic, if a consumer were to decide "I'm not going to buy anything from companies with overpaid CEOs" then he would basically be committing to avoiding all publicly traded companies and plenty of privately-held ones.
Click to expand...

Right, so who gives a shit? On the list of things to get upset over, how much money somebody who you will never meet makes has got to be at or near the bottom of the list. It has absolutely zero material effect on you. If you end up paying $.04 of his annual salary because of something you had to buy regardless of where it came from, oh well.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Right, so who gives a shit? On the list of things to get upset over, how much money somebody who you will never meet makes has got to be at or near the bottom of the list. It has absolutely zero material effect on you. If you end up paying $.04 of his annual salary because of something you had to buy regardless of where it came from, oh well.
Click to expand...

lol
 
tjcmd said:
Just about everything about government has gotten bigger in the last thirty years. Onerous regulation, higher spending and much higher debt. I think a lot of this funny money created by the Fed went straight into the pockets of the crony capitalists:

Federal_Debt.png
Click to expand...
Deacon923 just shot down your #anecdotes, and instead of rebutting you just ignored him and doubled down on your old man rhetoric. While you're at it, why don't you also tell us about how they don't play any defense in the NBA.
 
Last edited:
Deacon923 said:
Meh. The economy and population have gotten a lot bigger in the last 30 years, too. Resulting in this trend, which doesn't quite match your narrative.

fredgraph.png
Click to expand...

Make a graph of total government expenditures over the past 30+ years. Total government expenditures, although it does not count the onerous costs of runaway regulation or government mandates, is more reflective of government intrusion than "consumption expenditures and gross investment" by the feds only.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Right, so who gives a shit? On the list of things to get upset over, how much money somebody who you will never meet makes has got to be at or near the bottom of the list. It has absolutely zero material effect on you. If you end up paying $.04 of his annual salary because of something you had to buy regardless of where it came from, oh well.
Click to expand...

#neverbeenright #streakunshockinglycontinues
 
Now run that as percentage of GDP. I can't from my phone, plus it's time to commence Halloween.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top