Reply With Quote
They usually get raises for destroying jobs.
They usually get raises for destroying jobs.
enhancing profitability
I find it very su ious thy don't tell us what the average lower packages were in that two years. Without that disclosure, I call bull to the impression this journalist wants to make.After two years of lower pay packages, chief executives at the nation's major companies enjoyed a 36.5% jump in pay last year
So you think they only got a 35% raise last year.
OK.
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.
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. off.
I don't expect you to elaborate.
Ever.
Especially when I ask you to elaborate.
unfair
What was your raise this year?
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.
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?
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.
class war!
Then why are CEO salaries increases by 36.5%?
you won't get an answer..
How many of them did you personally ask?
I'm going to say zero.
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?
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.
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?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
