• 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

So you admit government spending has gone down under Obama.
 
The chart is useless. There were no social programs before the late thirties and life expectancy has grown dramatically since then. Add to these factors the Baby Boom after WWII.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Your post is a vast oversimplification and barely a half truth. Neither large nor small companies start at the top when trimming fat. I've yet in my life to see a scenario where a company failed to reach it's goals and responded by lowering the salaries of it's highest paid employees. There are always layoffs to be made, divisions to be jettisoned, and benefits to be cut.
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about? Clearly you have not lived much in the business world then. This may be the most ridiculous statement ever posted on these boards, which is saying a lot.

In virtually every small company, when financial goals aren't met, who takes home less money? Feel free to take your time to answer.

Even with public companies, it happens often.
"Abercrombie & Fitch Co. (ANF), meanwhile, announced in May that it had lowered its chief executive officer’s 2013 compensation by 72 percent after sales and profit fell." http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...vote-against-executive-compensation-plan.html

"Before Target Corp. (TGT) fired Chief Executive Officer Gregg Steinhafel this month, the company lowered his 2013 pay by 37 percent and cut his retirement benefits -- a response to pressure from shareholders." http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...growing-shareholder-frustration-over-pay.html

"E-Commerce giant eBay Inc. (EBAY - Analyst Report) announced a reduction in Chief Executive Officer (CEO) John Donahoe’s remuneration for 2013. Donahoe received $13.8 million (£8.3 million) as compensation package, which marked a 53% decline from 2012." http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/126132/ebay-cuts-ceos-pay-by-53

I can keep going, but I'm sure it is just #anecdotes.
 
In a small company, they wouldn't still have jobs unless they owned the company.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Neither large nor small companies start at the top when trimming fat. I've yet in my life to see a scenario where a company failed to reach it's goals and responded by lowering the salaries of it's highest paid employees. There are always layoffs to be made, divisions to be jettisoned, and benefits to be cut.
Click to expand...

You clearly have never been on the ownership side of a small business. Most small business owners feel a tremendous amount of responsibility for their employees and will go out of their way to ensure the employees are paid first and are the last to feel the knife when times are tough. When you hear about small business employees taking a pay cut you don't hear about how the owner has already gone months with a pay cut first, or where the owner has taken on more debt to try and get the company back on good financial footing.

Large businesses on the other hand...
 
tjcmd said:
I am sure Obama wants the smallest government possible. He will join the Libertarian Party when he retires from office.
Click to expand...

http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-over...ables/total-government-employment-since-1962/

As usual you use brainwashed mantras rather than facts. In 1960, there were 5,354,000 federal employees. When Obama took office in 2009, there were 4.430,000 federal employees. In 2012 there were 4,312,000.

So, the REALITY is in spite of the US population going up by well over 2/3 from Ike to Obama, the number of federal employees have gone down by 20%.

Further, W added about 280,000 employees versus Obama cutting over 100,000 federal positions.

Basically your post is ignorant of history, devoid of facts and totally FOS.
 
Last edited:
Ah so when proven wrong, tj has to go to namecalling. When the reality, the numbers the facts all prove you wrong, rather than admitting it, this is your response.
 
P
tjcmd said:
Look at government spending, the number of regulations, the number of mandates. Government is getting more onerous all the time. It is too big.

spending-GDP-chart1.png
Click to expand...

Where do all those dollars in the chart get spent? Who makes a profit off it? I'm still trying to figure out how reducing that spending improves salaries or benefits business at all.
 
RJ is a stupid asshole, but he's correct about Obama and the size of government.
 
Liquid Karma said:
You clearly have never been on the ownership side of a small business. Most small business owners feel a tremendous amount of responsibility for their employees and will go out of their way to ensure the employees are paid first and are the last to feel the knife when times are tough. When you hear about small business employees taking a pay cut you don't hear about how the owner has already gone months with a pay cut first, or where the owner has taken on more debt to try and get the company back on good financial footing.

Large businesses on the other hand...
Click to expand...
That is a very good point, I'll admit to having been talking out of my ass on that one. Small business owners certainly do make sacrifices for the benefit of their employees.

2&2's rebuttal was also a good one, those examples do contradict my anecdotal argument. From those examples it was nearly all stock and ownership benefits that fluctuated, right?
 
Small businesses aren't paying owners multi-millions. You can't compare the sets of companies.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
That is a very good point, I'll admit to having been talking out of my ass on that one. Small business owners certainly do make sacrifices for the benefit of their employees.

2&2's rebuttal was also a good one, those examples do contradict my anecdotal argument. From those examples it was nearly all stock and ownership benefits that fluctuated, right?
Click to expand...

Most was salary; some was stock/ownership. But even from a stock/ownership perspective, an option granted following which stock prices drop is a worthless option. It is directly tied to performance, so if the goal of legit economic improvement is not experienced, then the guy gets nothing from them. As plenty of people found out in the tech bubble, $2 million of stock options can be worth $0 pretty easily.
 
Which means cutting options can actually be nothing more than window dressing.
 
RJKarl said:
Ah so when proven wrong, tj has to go to namecalling. When the reality, the numbers the facts all prove you wrong, rather than admitting it, this is your response.
Click to expand...

You can't label someone FOS without expecting retaliatory name calling on occasion RJ.
 
Saying your is FOS is a matter of fact as I showed with the real numbers.What you posted was total fabrications. It's been at least 60-70 years since the federal government employed this low a percentage of Americans. Obama has about 1,000,000 government employees than Ike did.

When you are empirically FOS, it's not name calling. It would be like saying I'm fat.

Your most recent post and unwillingness to admit how wrong you are says a lot about who you are.
 
RJKarl said:
The chart is useless. There were no social programs before the late thirties and life expectancy has grown dramatically since then. Add to these factors the Baby Boom after WWII.
Click to expand...

Get rid of those morally degrading socialist programs. We are a country of bootstraps, my friend. Bootstraps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top