If i dont like what an executive is making i can decide not to invest in the company so this is a bad argument, what someone in the private sector makes has no effect on my pocket book whatsoever, when was the last time the parasitic tit suckers in the government allowed me to quit paying my taxes if i didnt agree with wehat they were doing?
Ohio Senate passes Union Busting Bill. Another proud day for America.
- Thread starter Hello
- Start date
Really? And when was the last time you, or anyone you know, did not invest in a company expressly because of your disregard for executive compensation? And although it may not affect you, gargantuan executive compensation does affect shareholder pocket books in the aggregate. It is widespread, as most Americans have an interest in one form or another, either directly or otherwise. The invisible hand is either idle or rifling through shareholders' pockets for spare change.
No, I didn't. It was beside the point, so there was no point in answering it. I was merely pointing to your inconsistency (read: hypocrisy). As for legislation, YOU are the one who wants to ram legislation down the throats of some but not others. Let me say it again:
I am merely noting your desire to quash employees' bargaining rights as a matter of law, while leaving executive compensation dynamics to the "invisible hand." The underdog can look after himself, while you coddle the overlord.
Bad analogy Hello, it is a good ol boys club. Gabfly is right on this one. As a share holder, one in all practically has no say in what the CEO gets paid. When in theory he works for the shareholders. And the option to not invest is hollow also, most Americans invest through a company 401K fund or mutual fund or pension fund that invests their money.
This is a recent phenomenon, companies in the past were able to be successful without making the CEO's multi millionaires or in some cases billionaires. Don't know what the solution is, just pointing out the facts.
I see good points on both sides of this argument (including, surprisingly, Lucrum's). But the whole thing smacks more of a feeding frenzy at the bottom where the last of the five-digit incomes are being fought over by the last of the middle class, than anything else. Melodrama intended. ; )
Teachers are not "this" bad. They entered into compensation agreements at a time when they were in short supply, they agreed to pay in to their pension at a certain rate, their employer agreed to match at a certain rate, the pension itself was supposed to stay abreast of inflation. Thus, they worked for and planned on a retirement to be available to them some four decades later. These numbers are not huge, certainly not for administrators, but I'll admit that if you compare them to what the private sector has left yeah, they must look huge.
Decades old agreements with teachers cannot be honored now, our incomes have fled to China, and gamblers played with the pension funds and blew up (if they didn't outright steal, as some say they did), so we can't afford to pay them anymore. Fine, manage the crisis, do the damage control, but quit calling teachers "leeches".
Teachers are not "this" bad. They entered into compensation agreements at a time when they were in short supply, they agreed to pay in to their pension at a certain rate, their employer agreed to match at a certain rate, the pension itself was supposed to stay abreast of inflation. Thus, they worked for and planned on a retirement to be available to them some four decades later. These numbers are not huge, certainly not for administrators, but I'll admit that if you compare them to what the private sector has left yeah, they must look huge.
Decades old agreements with teachers cannot be honored now, our incomes have fled to China, and gamblers played with the pension funds and blew up (if they didn't outright steal, as some say they did), so we can't afford to pay them anymore. Fine, manage the crisis, do the damage control, but quit calling teachers "leeches".
I'm not opposed to labor unions. I am opposed to many of their tactics of the last several decades. I am opposed to companies not standing their ground when it comes to excessive demands by unions. I think employees should be able to strike and companies should be able to replace them if and when they do. I've already agreed with you that there are grossly over compensated executives, in some cases when the company is losing money or laying off workers. I'm just saying it's non of the federal governments business what PRIVATE companies pay their executives. Should the government control what actors, sports figures and entertainers make? Many of their incomes are just as absurd and their not even producing anything of substance, only entertainment for the sheeple.
You're simply showing your emotions based on the liberal dogma of which you've swallowed hook line and sicker. Which requires you to support government control of everything and to despise all things private sector.
Actually, I think that is why Big Bank execs get paid so much. One bank hires "consultants" who then make the rounds to other banks jacking up executive pay and then "comparing" them by pointing to the over-inflated pay-rate they just analyzed for the prior bank. It's a happy circle-jerk as the execs can point to the "independent" compensation finding of the consultant and the consultant makes nice fees going from big bank to big bank.