Corporate Job Creator salary increases by 36.5%

[Spurminator]

http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/15/news/companies/ceo_pay/index.htm?hpt=hp_t2

[ChumpDumper]

They usually get raises for destroying jobs.

[Winehole23]

enhancing profitability

[Wild Cobra]

After two years of lower pay packages, chief executives at the nation's major companies enjoyed a 36.5% jump in pay last year
I find it very suspicious thy don't tell us what the average lower packages were in that two years. Without that disclosure, I call bullshit to the impression this journalist wants to make.

[ChumpDumper]

I find it very suspicious thy don't tell us what the average lower packages were in that two years. Without that disclosure, I call bullshit to the impression this journalist wants to make.So you think they only got a 35% raise last year.

OK.

[Wild Cobra]

So you think they only got a 35% raise last year.

OK.
I think you need to work on your reading comprehension.

[ChumpDumper]

I think you need to work on your reading comprehension.I'll give you a hint.

Last year's compensation was 36.5% lower for the packages measured.

[Wild Cobra]

I'll give you a hint.

Last year's compensation was 36.5% lower for the packages measured.
I'm not even wasting my time with you. You go off into an assumption of your biased choosing and fail to realize the point I make. You treat me as if I don't understand when it is you who don't. If you asked me to elaborate, that's one thing, but no. You act as if you are the only one with something of merit to say.

I'm done with you. Fuck off.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not even wasting my time with you. You go off into an assumption of your biased choosing and fail to realize the point I make. You treat me as if I don't understand when it is you who don't. If you asked me to elaborate, that's one thing, but no. You act as if you are the only one with something of merit to say.

I'm done with you. Fuck off.:lol

I don't expect you to elaborate.

Ever.

Especially when I ask you to elaborate.

[DarrinS]

unfair

[johnsmith]

http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/15/news/companies/ceo_pay/index.htm?hpt=hp_t2

and?

[ChumpDumper]

unfairWhat was your raise this year?

[Spurminator]

and?

Are we in a recession or not?

This is a direct contradiction to the "job creator" meme that always comes up we talk about things like 4% tax breaks going away for the top income brackets or treating capital gains taxes the same as income tax. Putting more and more money in the hands of the wealthy stock holders in this country clearly does not lead to greater employment.

And I'm not saying higher taxes is the answer to unemployment either. Just that there seems to be very little jobs incentive to continuing to do favors for the upper crust.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I think further cutting the 36.5% job creator a break on his taxes... so his increase next year can get closer to 40%..how many jobs did he/she create becasue of the Bush/Obama tax cut?

[Yonivore]

Are we in a recession or not?

This is a direct contradiction to the "job creator" meme that always comes up we talk about 4% tax breaks going away for the top income brackets or treating capital gains taxes the same as income tax. Putting more and more money in the hands of the wealthy stock holders in this country clearly does not lead to greater employment.

And I'm not saying higher taxes is the answer to unemployment either. Just that there seems to be very little jobs incentive to continuing to do favors for the upper crust.
The other part of the equation is getting government to lift the boot off the neck of industry and employers.

If you ask most small to medium-sized businesses why they're not hiring right now, they'll tell you its because of costs associated with employment. They can't afford it.

If you ask large businesses why they're not hiring right now, they'll tell you its because of the uncertainty Obama's clearly anti-business posture and policy-making has introduced into the free market.

And, with all classes of businesses, there are those in states desperately trying to remain solvent by enacting more and more taxing of business. Those that can afford it -- move. Those that can't either shut down or maintain the status quo in the hopes they can weather the storm.

Cutting taxes has to be combined with a business-friendly climate before their will be any meaningful recovery.

[Winehole23]

unfairclass war!

[Th'Pusher]

The other part of the equation is getting government to lift the boot off the neck of industry and employers.

If you ask most small to medium-sized businesses why they're not hiring right now, they'll tell you its because of costs associated with employment. They can't afford it.

If you ask large businesses why they're not hiring right now, they'll tell you its because of the uncertainty Obama's clearly anti-business posture and policy-making has introduced into the free market.

And, with all classes of businesses, there are those in states desperately trying to remain solvent by enacting more and more taxing of business. Those that can afford it -- move. Those that can't either shut down or maintain the status quo in the hopes they can weather the storm.

Cutting taxes has to be combined with a business-friendly climate before their will be any meaningful recovery.

Then why are CEO salaries increases by 36.5%?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Then why are CEO salaries increases by 36.5%?

you won't get an answer..

[ChumpDumper]

If you ask most small to medium-sized businesses why they're not hiring right now, they'll tell you its because of costs associated with employment. They can't afford it.

If you ask large businesses why they're not hiring right now, they'll tell you its because of the uncertainty Obama's clearly anti-business posture and policy-making has introduced into the free market.How many of them did you personally ask?

I'm going to say zero.

[Winehole23]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/12/09/143398685/gop-objects-to-millionaires-surtax-millionaires-we-found-not-so-much?ft=1&f=1001

[Yonivore]

you won't get an answer..
Because the boards that run them decided to give them raises.

It's not a hard question.

Who's hurt by this? Does the money not belong to the company?

[Th'Pusher]

Because the boards that run them decided to give them raises.

It's not a hard question.

Who's hurt by this? Does the money not belong to the company?

But you just said, they're not hiring because they can't afford it and because of the uncertain business environment Obama has created. That doesn't really square with an average 36.5% salary increase for CEO's does it?

[Yonivore]

But you just said, they're not hiring because they can't afford it and because of the uncertain business environment Obama has created. That doesn't really square with an average 36.5% salary increase for CEO's does it?
So, just how many people do you think could be employed with the 36.5% increase given to corporate executives?

Further, what difference does it make. Are you suggesting that the people who are invested in the company and making the decisions they hope will improve their financial positions would award raises to executives and hold off on expanding production or employment if it doesn't make sense to you?

[Th'Pusher]

So, just how many people do you think could be employed with the 36.5% increase given to corporate executives?

Further, what difference does it make. Are you suggesting that the people who are invested in the company and making the decisions they hope will improve their financial positions would award raises to executives and hold off on expanding production or employment if it doesn't make sense to you?

No. I think there is a lack of demand to justify further expanding production and employment and increasing CEO's salaries is only going to compound that problem. I'd prefer to see that wealth redistributed to those that will spend it, thereby increasing demand. Unfortunately, it does not look like the CEOs and their boards are going to trickle that money down so I guess the government is going to have to step in and do it for them. Too bad, as the government will likely not do it as efficiently.

[Yonivore]

No. I think there is a lack of demand to justify further expanding production and employment and increasing CEO's salaries is only going to compound that problem. I'd prefer to see that wealth redistributed to those that will spend it, thereby increasing demand. Unfortunately, it does not look like the CEOs and their boards are going to trickle that money down so I guess the government is going to have to step in and do it for them. Too bad, as the government will likely not do it as efficiently.
Why do you presume the corporations are doing something that is counter to their interests and, why are the people to whom the government would redistribute the money more deserving than those to whom the corporations -- the actual owners of the money -- decide to give it?

[Th'Pusher]

Why do you presume the corporations are doing something that is counter to their interests

It is in the best interest of everyone, including the corporations, to have more people with more money to buy their products.


and, why are the people to whom the government would redistribute the money more deserving than those to whom the corporations -- the actual owners of the money -- decide to give it?

Because they will spend it - increasing demand and expanding the economy. That's the goal.

[Yonivore]

It is in the best interest of everyone, including the corporations, to have more people with more money to buy their products.
If corporations agreed with you, they'd be doing it.


Because they will spend it - increasing demand and expanding the economy. That's the goal.
If corporations thought your formula would increase demand for their products, they'd do it.

[Th'Pusher]

If corporations agreed with you, they'd be doing it.


If corporations thought your formula would increase demand for their products, they'd do it.

That's why the government is going to need to step in and give the invisible hand a little nudge. It appears to be broken. :depressed

[Yonivore]

That's why the government is going to need to step in and give the invisible hand a little nudge. It appears to be broken. :depressed
It's not the government's money.

[Th'Pusher]

It's not the government's money.

Not yet. We're going to need to change the tax code to confiscate it. But don't worry - It'll be in the best interest of all involved.

[Yonivore]

Not yet. We're going to need to change the tax code to confiscate it. But don't worry - It'll be in the best interest of all involved.
And, there you are.

[Th'Pusher]

And, there you are.

Like I said, I'd prefer the corps do it themselves. It's not the government's fault the corps aren't doing their part to make certain trickle down economics works. You'd think they would as they were largely responsible for selling us on the theory in the first place.

[boutons_deux]

"You'd think they would as they were largely responsible for selling us on the theory in the first place."

they voted in St Ronnie and his laffer curve/trickle-down shit, so yes, were as responsible as anybody.

[Yonivore]

Like I said, I'd prefer the corps do it themselves.
That they're not should tell you they believe it does not make economic sense for them.


It's not the government's fault the corps aren't doing their part to make certain trickle down economics works. You'd think they would as they were largely responsible for selling us on the theory in the first place.
Nor is it the government's responsibility to redistribute wealth.

[George Gervin's Afro]

That they're not should tell you they believe it does not make economic sense for them.


Nor is it the government's responsibility to redistribute wealth.

so we've been duped about the trickle down theory from the begining..

[Yonivore]

so we've been duped about the trickle down theory from the begining..
Nope. You're forgetting the second part of the equation that business are reluctant to invest capital in expansion or employment because of the uncertainty Obama's anti-business policies have introduced into the market.

It hasn't been given a chance.

[Th'Pusher]

That they're not should tell you they believe it does not make economic sense for them.

But is does make economic sense for them. Weird, right? It was their theory in the first place.


Nor is it the government's responsibility to redistribute wealth.

Why not?

[Th'Pusher]

Nope. You're forgetting the second part of the equation that business are reluctant to invest capital in expansion or employment because of the uncertainty Obama's anti-business policies have introduced into the market.

It hasn't been given a chance.

But it didn't work under Bush either.

[Winehole23]

businessmen are too scared of regulation to risk their money right now.

[Winehole23]

quelle horreur!

[Winehole23]

are they wimps?

[Yonivore]

But is does make economic sense for them. Weird, right? It was their theory in the first place.
No. It's not weird when government is throttling productivity.


Why not?
Because it's not their money. It also doesn't belong to the people to which they wish to redistribute it.

[Th'Pusher]

No. It's not weird when government is throttling productivity.

Was GWB throttling productivity too? Not many jobs created under him either.



Because it's not their money. It also doesn't belong to the people to which they wish to redistribute it.

So you're for completely eliminating all government transfers?

[scott]

It is a critical mistake for anyone who believes in Free Markets to overlook the fact that free markets still fail. Where markets failure exists, there is a role for a governing force. This is basic Econ 101 that so many folks like to conveniently forget.

Edit: that may, or may not, be the case here - but to say "if that was the right thing, the market would do it" is a fail of an answer in almost all cases.

[Stringer_Bell]

It is a critical mistake for anyone who believes in Free Markets to overlook the fact that free markets still fail.

But, but, but American corporations always know what's best -if you just let them run their businesses like they want, there will be more jobs and milk and honey for everyone...and maybe one day you too can get a 36.5% raise! UGHHH-YUP!!!

http://www.allfreevectors.com/images/Free%20Vector%20Goofy%200032956.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

The other part of the equation is getting government to lift the boot off the neck of industry and employers.

If you ask most small to medium-sized businesses why they're not hiring right now, they'll tell you its because of costs associated with employment. They can't afford it.

If you ask large businesses why they're not hiring right now, they'll tell you its because of the uncertainty Obama's clearly anti-business posture and policy-making has introduced into the free market.

And, with all classes of businesses, there are those in states desperately trying to remain solvent by enacting more and more taxing of business. Those that can afford it -- move. Those that can't either shut down or maintain the status quo in the hopes they can weather the storm.

Cutting taxes has to be combined with a business-friendly climate before their will be any meaningful recovery.
This is why the economy will stay the same if democrats gain ground after the election and better if the republicans do, especially if we get a republican president.

[Wild Cobra]

Then why are CEO salaries increases by 36.5%?
Is it possible they decreased by about that much over the previous two years before the large raises?

[boutons_deux]

Historical CEO compensation

http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/26/executive-pay-ceo-leadership-compensation-best-boss-10-bosses_chart.html

[Stringer_Bell]

Is it possible they decreased by about that much over the previous two years before the large raises?

Absolutely not. If CEO pay was being decreased, how would they ever attract the best and brightest minds to run the biggest companies? If you were applying to be a CEO, wouldn't you be skeptical if the company was decreasing its paychecks?

I mean, c'mon, without the bonus packages, there's no telling what kind of boneheads would be running Wall Street right now...I'm sure the same applies to job creator salaries.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/12/09/143398685/gop-objects-to-millionaires-surtax-millionaires-we-found-not-so-much?ft=1&f=1001
Funny how...

It doesn't say how they are paid or how much. Small business, maybe they pay themselves under $200k in income, and take the rest in dividend payments. Even business people who deal with customers put on a good face.

Do you think sports stars and actors should pay more? Entertainment is where increasing normal income taxes will take money from the most.

[Stringer_Bell]

Wow, BD, thanks for that graph. I was soooo off haha

[Wild Cobra]

Historical CEO compensation

http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/26/executive-pay-ceo-leadership-compensation-best-boss-10-bosses_chart.html
So if I'm looking at that hart right, they went from over $15 mil average in 2007 to about $8mil average in 2010, and the increase puts them at about $11 mil.

Still lower than 2010.

Looks like my original suspicion applies in post #4.

[boutons_deux]

Lots of historical data here

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

When St Ronnie initiating the War on Employees signalled to CEOs that they could grab all the riches, and fuck the employees out benefits and jobs and pay themselves the saving, is why real household income is essentially flat for 30 years.

[ChumpDumper]

No. It's not weird when government is throttling productivity. Productivity to do what?

Few in the middle class or lower money to buy shit anymore.